[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13000-13052]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

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

                              {time}  0913


                     In the Committee of the Whole

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


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

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

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

                              {time}  0915

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am proposing an opportunity 
for really securing the homeland and, that is, my amendment proposes to 
re-fund the Citizen Corps where H.R. 4568 purported to create a 
shortfall in the amount of almost $19 million. The President of the 
United States proposed that that amount would be at least $40 million. 
In order to account for this proposed shortfall, I have increased this 
appropriation by $20 million.
  The Citizen Corps program was launched by President George W. Bush 
during the 2002 State of the Union address as part of the USA Freedom 
Corps Initiative to engage Americans in volunteer service. In only 2 
years, nearly 1,000 communities around the country encompassing 40 
percent of the U.S. population established Citizen Corps Councils to 
help inform and train citizens in emergency preparedness and to 
coordinate and expand opportunities for citizen volunteers to 
participate in homeland security efforts and to make our communities 
safe. Fifty-two States and territories also formed state-level Citizen 
Corps Councils to support local efforts.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, that that is not enough. Supporting the 
Citizen Corps concept, a recent opinion poll shows that Americans are 
interested in volunteering to help their local community emergency 
service providers such as law enforcement, fire, emergency medical 
services, or with organizations that focus on community safety such as 
the American Red Cross or Neighborhood Watch. Forty percent of those 
polled answered that they would be willing to volunteer. In addition, 
nearly two-thirds of respondents believed it is important for 
neighborhoods to have a way to work together on emergency preparedness.
  Mr. Chairman, in our authorizing committee, the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security, we have discussed, and I have discussed, and amended 
several of our legislative initiatives to include reinforcing and 
expanding our Citizen Corps. If we really want to secure the homeland 
and if we really believe that the homeland is outside our parameters, 
going into rural areas, going into villages, going into small 
communities as well as urban centers, then Citizen Corps is the way to 
do it. It establishes a base in which to encourage and educate and 
prepare our citizens for any terrorist act that may occur.

[[Page 13001]]

  I have heard many individuals say that the way to secure the homeland 
is to keep the terrorists out, and they are absolutely correct. But no 
proposition has 100 percent protection and no proposition is 100 
percent correct. I certainly agree in securing the homeland by keeping 
the terrorists out before they even arrive on our shores; but clearly 
in order to have a truly secure homeland, we must secure our neighbors 
and neighborhoods. Our families need to be aware of the threats that 
exist from abroad. Homeland security is a very important issue that we 
may not think about in our daily lives.
  I am reminded of Houston, maybe not unlike many cities in the United 
States on 9/11, not knowing what might occur, poised for the worst. In 
the instance of Houston, Texas, for example, there were rumors that 
planes were headed to the city of Houston because of its refineries. As 
I called down to the mayor of the city of Houston on that day to find 
out if the city, in essence, was okay, knowing that my family was there 
and others of my neighbors and constituents, as other Congress Members 
were concerned about their neighborhoods and cities and towns, I was 
told that there was, in essence, confusion as there was in every city, 
what to do with school children, whether parents should come and get 
them or not, whether people should stay in place, whether downtown 
Houston should close down, what should be done in our refinery areas 
and oil-producing areas.
  We need to respect the local needs and what our families need, but we 
also need to educate our community. I along with fellow Democratic 
members of the committee worked to introduce a bill entitled Preparing 
America to Respond Effectively Act of 2003, or the PREPARE Act. This 
bill was a comprehensive attempt to prepare our local first responders 
for potential acts of terrorism.
  Among the provisions are those that are proposed to improve funding 
mechanisms, bolster information sharing, enhance threat warnings, 
communications and equipment interoperability, and to integrate private 
companies and the public into distinct response plans. The main 
provisions of the PREPARE Act were incorporated into a larger bill from 
the entire committee, H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for 
First Responders Act of 2003, which was reported favorably out of the 
House select committee and was just reported favorably out of the 
Committee on the Judiciary today.
  Also incorporated in the bill under section 8 is an amendment that I 
offered that deals with the mobilization and utilization of a Citizen 
Corps that will allow families to get information and terror threat 
directives in a timely fashion without having to go through layers of 
administration. The Houston branch of the Citizen Corps Council is 
headquartered in Harris County, which is in southeastern Texas. The key 
element, of course, however, is to ensure that all local communities 
are safe. My example is due to its close proximity to the Gulf of 
Mexico; this legislation is needed.
  Let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I would hope that 
we would support securing our citizens by providing these resources for 
them in this appropriation. I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the base bill, H.R. 4567, and to 
offer an amendment. I understand that the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), ``in an effort to streamline funding and to enhance the 
coordination and administration'' of 3 programs that include the 
Citizen Corps Program, has conglomerated the State Homeland Security 
Program (SHSP), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 
(LETPP), and the Citizen Corps Program into one application.
  However, I also understand from the committee reports of this 
Subcommittee (page 70 of report 108-51) that H.R. 4567 proposes to 
decrease the Citizen Corps Program by $19,764,000. Therefore, it seems 
that the ``conglomeration'' effort by DHS has facilitated the weakening 
of a lifeline for our local community forces.
  The Jackson-Lee Amendment (JACKSO.224) proposes to re-fund the 
Citizen Corps where H.R. 4567 purported to create a shortfall from the 
amounts provided in FY 2004 and $30,000,000 below the President's 
request.
  In order to account for this proposed shortfall, the Jackson-Lee 
amendment increases the State and Local Programs account found in Title 
III, Preparedness and Recovery (page 22, line 25) by $20,000,000 and 
decreases the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, also found in 
Title III (page 22, line 25) by the same amount.
  The Citizen Corps program was launched by President George W. Bush 
himself, during the 2002 State of the Union address as part of the USA 
Freedom Corps initiative to engage Americans in volunteer service.
  In only 2 years, nearly 1,000 communities around the country, 
encompassing 40 percent of the U.S. population established Citizen 
Corps Councils to help inform and train citizens in emergency 
preparedness and to coordinate and expand opportunities for citizen 
volunteers to participate in homeland security efforts and make our 
communities safer. Fifty-two states and territories also formed State 
level Citizen Corps Councils to support local efforts.
  Supporting the Citizen Corps concept, a recent opinion poll shows 
that Americans are interested in volunteering to help their local 
community emergency service providers, such as law enforcement, fire, 
or emergency medical services, or with organizations that focus on 
community safety, such as the American Red Cross or Neighborhood Watch. 
Forty percent of those polled answered that they would be willing to 
volunteer. In addition, nearly two thirds of respondents (63 percent) 
believe it is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work 
together on emergency preparedness.
  Our families need to be aware of the threats that exist from abroad. 
Homeland Security is a very important issue that we may not think about 
in our daily lives.
  With respect to our local needs and what our families need to think 
about in the very immediate future, I have worked in the House Select 
Committee on Homeland Security to craft legislation that aims at 
strengthening the first responders. I, along with my fellow Democrat 
Members of the Committee, worked to introduce a bill entitled the 
``Preparing America To Respond Effectively Act of 2003,'' or the 
``PREPARE Act.'' This bill was a comprehensive attempt to prepare our 
local first responders for potential acts of terrorism. Among the 
provisions are those that propose to improve funding mechanisms, 
bolster information sharing, enhance threat warnings, communications, 
and equipment interoperability, and to integrate private companies and 
the public into distinct response plans.
  The main provisions of the PREPARE Act were incorporated into a 
larger bill from the entire Committee, H.R. 3266, the ``Faster and 
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2003,'' which reported 
favorably out of the House Select Committee and just reported favorably 
out of the Judiciary Committee today. Also incorporated in the bill 
under section 8 (page 51, as reported by the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security) is an amendment that I offered that deals with the 
mobilization and utilization of a ``Citizens Corps'' that will allow 
families to get information and terror threat directives in a timely 
fashion and without having to go through layers of administration.
  The Houston branch of the Citizen Corps Council is headquartered in 
my Congressional District, Harris County, which is in southeastern 
Texas, comprises 1,779 square miles, and encompasses the city of 
Houston, 32 additional smaller cities, and is the home for nearly 
4,000,000 residents. Harris County is the third most populous county in 
the United States and one of the most culturally diverse.
  Due to its close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and its topography, 
Harris County is prone to flooding and ongoing hurricane and tropical 
storm threats. In June 2001, Harris County was pummeled by tropical 
storm Allison's tidal surge and the 20 inches of rain she dropped on 
Harris and neighboring counties. The storm took 22 lives and caused an 
estimated $5 billion in damage.
  Harris County is also home to numerous potential terrorist targets:

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

[[Page 13002]]

       A nuclear power plant located approximately 70 miles from 
     the county.

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


         Amendment Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

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

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

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


                             Point of Order

   The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation 
bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI which states, in pertinent 
part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in 
order if changing existing law by imposing additional duties.''
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to 
withdraw my amendment, but I think this is a very important point. I 
just held for all of the membership here about 10 days ago a meeting 
with first responders. The answer is always the same. The money is 
taking too long to come down into the local hands.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 13003]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentlewoman's withdrawing the 
amendment? Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     firefighter assistance grants

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

                         Counterterrorism Fund

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

                  Emergency Preparedness and Response


 office of the under secretary for emergency preparedness and response

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


            preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery

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


                 administrative and regional operations

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


                         public health programs

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


                            disaster relief

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


            disaster assistance direct loan program account

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


                      flood map modernization fund

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


              radiological emergency preparedness program

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


                     national flood insurance fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

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


                     national flood mitigation fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

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

                 national pre-disaster mitigation fund

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

                              {time}  0930


                             Point of Order

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


                       emergency food and shelter

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

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

                  Citizenship and Immigration Services

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

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, including materials and support costs of 
     Federal law enforcement basic training; purchase of not to

[[Page 13004]]

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


     acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses

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

           Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection


                     management and administration

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

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

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

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

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


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

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

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

[[Page 13005]]

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

                              {time}  0945

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

[[Page 13006]]

   In order to further advocate this important cause, I plan to offer a 
proposal to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authorization 
bill that will put an overall initiative in motion to really utilize 
the vast resources, skills, energy, and creativity that is to be found 
in our HBCUs, HISs, and community colleges.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. This amendment earmarks 
$10 million within the Science and Technology account for specific 
institutions of higher learning.
  Mr. Chairman, we have studiously and steadfastly avoided all earmarks 
in this bill. There are none. This would be an earmark. For that 
reason, I have to oppose it. The University Centers of Excellence 
awards are made on a competitive basis and should stay that way.
  All universities and colleges in the United States can apply, 
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-
serving institutions and community colleges. Universities and colleges 
can apply singly or together as part of a consortium, pooling the 
talents of several higher-learning institutions. The recent Center of 
Excellence award on agroterrorism to the University of Minnesota 
includes Tuskegee University, a Historically Black University, as one 
of its partners.
  The S&T university program has been proactive in reaching out to 
minorities. S&T encourages the Center of Excellence competitors to 
partner with minority institutions. They are setting up a program for 
partnering university minority faculty with national labs for 
fellowships and internships. A new Center of Excellence award on 
emergency preparedness and response will be targeted to the urban 
community, with the intent of reaching more institutions with minority 
populations. This center will focus on training for emergency 
preparedness.
  The competition element, Mr. Chairman, is critical to bring together 
the Nation's best experts and focus its most talented researchers on 
science and technology solutions to combat terrorist threats against 
this Nation from wherever they come.
  It is absolutely critical to the security of the country that the 
Department of Homeland Security is able to utilize the best science 
that the Nation has to offer, be it private sector technology, national 
labs, or our great universities and colleges. The best way to identify 
that talent is through open competition, not earmarks, which this 
amendment would do. For that reason, I urge Members to reject the 
amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, having heard the chairman's explanation, I was 
wondering if the gentlewoman from Texas could respond.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia. I am prepared to respond.
  I thank the distinguished chairman, because I know that the ranking 
member and the chairman have worked very hard. But it is well known 
that it is very difficult for the Historically Black Colleges and 
Hispanic-serving colleges to be competitive in the process he just 
enunciated. This is expanding the pot in a very narrow way. Frankly, 
what it does is it says we all comprehensively are valued in the 
homeland security effort.
  You will note that Historically Black Colleges, 242 of them, are 
located in heavily rural areas. The impact that they have is far-
reaching. I heard a colleague on the House say not to leave out the 
rural areas as it relates to homeland security, not to leave out the 
agricultural chain, if you will, in homeland security.
  Many of our Historically Black Colleges, such as the colleges in 
Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia, are located many times in rural 
areas and deal as their basis of research and training in the 
agriculture industry. Their participation in an effort to secure the 
homeland where they can participate in the fullest manner, I think, is 
not too much to ask of my colleagues on the floor of the House today.
  This also impacts Hispanic-serving institutions. One of the issues 
that is key in securing the homeland is responding to our diverse 
population. Hispanic-serving institutions would have the better ability 
by language to be able to communicate with those individuals by 
training, by research, by investment, those individuals who may speak 
at this time a different language.
  So I would respectfully suggest that the funding that has been placed 
in this bill, though it is certainly responsible and respectful, it 
does not go to those who have had a very difficult time competing in 
the large sphere against major universities and institutions far larger 
than them.
  I think if we look at the grant assessment or the grant awarding and 
balance it alongside of the major institutions in many of our 
communities, we are respectful of many of those institutions in our 
communities. The large ones we are very knowledgeable about. We call 
them the multiplex or multinational universities. They are by far able 
to surpass some of these Historically Black Colleges.
  I have a letter of support on this amendment from the national 
association of organizations dealing with black colleges, NAFEO, that 
welcomes the opportunity to participate, 118 historically and 
predominantly black colleges, along with the representatives from the 
community college sector. What they simply say is, we are the little 
guy.
  Let us help out the little guys. The little guys need help. This is 
not to say that this is a handout, because we know that homeland 
security is too serious for that, but in fact because it is needed and 
because these individual colleges, small colleges, Historically Black, 
Hispanic-serving, can serve in the community, work on homeland security 
and really do what we are trying to do on the floor of the House today, 
which is to ensure that we have a strong Citizen Corps, to ensure that 
we have the first responder system. This can be worked out of this, 
giving them greater assistance by helping to secure the homeland, by 
training first responders right in the neighborhood, and working on 
research opportunities and training opportunities.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. I ask my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      assessments and evaluations

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

                         Science and Technology


                     management and administration

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


           research, development, acquisition and operations

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

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for

[[Page 13007]]

     obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so 
     provided herein.
       Sec. 502. Subject to the requirements of section 503 of 
     this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
     appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this Act: Provided, That balances so transferred 
     may be merged with funds in the applicable established 
     accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for 
     the same time period as originally enacted.
       Sec. 503 (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, 
     provided by previous appropriation Acts to the agencies in or 
     transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that 
     remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 
     2005, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the 
     United States derived by the collection of fees available to 
     the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, 
     project, or activity; (3) increases funds for any program, 
     project, or activity for which funds have been denied or 
     restricted by the Congress; or (4) proposes to use funds 
     directed for a specific activity by either the House or 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations for a different purpose; 
     unless both Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives are notified 15 days in advance 
     of such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by 
     previous appropriation Acts to the agencies in or transferred 
     to the Department of Homeland Security that remain available 
     for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2005, or 
     provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United 
     States derived by the collection of fees available to the 
     agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure for programs, projects, or 
     activities through a reprogramming of funds in excess of 
     $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1) 
     augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel that would result in a 
     change in existing programs, projects, or activities as 
     approved by the Congress; unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of 
     funds.
       (c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous 
     appropriation Acts may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer under this subsection shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) and shall not be 
     available for obligation unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       Sec. 504. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
     not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
     available at the end of fiscal year 2005 from appropriations 
     for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2005 in this Act 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2006, in the 
     account and for the purposes for which the appropriations 
     were provided: Provided, That prior to the obligation of such 
     funds, a request shall be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     for approval in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
       Sec. 505. Funds made available by this Act for intelligence 
     activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the 
     Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2005 until the 
     enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for 
     fiscal year 2005.
       Sec. 506. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center shall 
     establish an accrediting body, to include representatives 
     from the Federal law enforcement community and non-Federal 
     accreditation experts involved in law enforcement training, 
     to establish standards for measuring and assessing the 
     quality and effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training 
     programs, facilities, and instructors.
       Sec. 507. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make 
     a grant unless the Secretary of Homeland Security notifies 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives not less than 3 full business days before 
     any grant allocation, discretionary grant award, or letter of 
     intent totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the 
     Department or its directorates from: (1) any discretionary or 
     formula-based grant program of the Office for State and Local 
     Government Coordination and Preparedness; (2) any letter of 
     intent from the Transportation Security Administration; (3) 
     any port security grant; or (4) awards for Homeland Security 
     Centers of Excellence: Provided, That no notification shall 
     involve funds that are not available for obligation.
       Sec. 508. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional 
     facilities, except within or contiguous to existing 
     locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal 
     law enforcement training without the advance approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of 
     additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement 
     for training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center 
     facilities.
       Sec. 509. The Director of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center shall ensure that all training facilities 
     under the control of the Center are operated at optimal 
     capacity throughout the fiscal year.
       Sec. 510. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for expenses of any 
     construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for 
     which a prospectus, if required by the Public Buildings Act 
     of 1959, has not been approved, except that necessary funds 
     may be expended for each project for required expenses for 
     the development of a proposed prospectus.
       Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pursue or adopt 
     guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to 
     provide to the Transportation Security Administration without 
     cost building construction, maintenance, utilities and 
     expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for 
     services relating to aviation security: Provided, That the 
     prohibition of funds in this section does not apply to--
       (1) negotiations between the agency and airport sponsors to 
     achieve agreement on ``below-market'' rates for these items; 
     or
       (2) space for necessary security checkpoints.
       Sec. 512. (a) None of the funds in this Act may be used in 
     contravention of the applicable provisions of the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       (b) None of the funds in this Act may be used to procure 
     articles, materials, or supplies for public use, or to enter 
     into a contract for the construction, alteration, or repair 
     of a public building or public work, pursuant to an exception 
     set forth in section 2 of section 3 of the Buy American Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) until--
       (1) a notification of the intent to apply such exception is 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives; and
       (2) a period of 15 days has expired after the date on which 
     such notification is so submitted.
       (c) The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall conduct audits of contracts entered into by 
     the Department of Homeland Security during a fiscal year for 
     purposes of determining compliance with the Buy American Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.). The Inspector General shall submit 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives an annual report on the results of 
     the audit. The report shall be submitted at the same time the 
     President submits to Congress the budget for a fiscal year 
     and shall cover the same fiscal year. The first report under 
     this subsection shall be submitted with for fiscal year 2006.
       Sec. 513. The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to 
     research, develop, and procure certified systems to inspect 
     and screen air cargo on passenger aircraft at the earliest 
     date possible: Provided, That until such technology is 
     procured and installed, the Secretary shall take all possible 
     actions to enhance the known shipper program to prohibit 
     high-risk cargo from being transported on passenger aircraft: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall amend Security 
     Directives and programs in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act to, at a minimum, double the percentage of cargo 
     inspected on passenger aircraft.
       Sec. 514. Notwithstanding sections 524, 571, and 572 of 
     title 40, United States Code, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security may sell the Bolingbrook family housing area in 
     Bolingbrook, Illinois, the Prairie View family housing area 
     in Prairie View, Illinois, the Chapel Hill Rear Range Light 
     in Leonardo, New Jersey, and the Richmond Heights housing 
     complex in Miami, Florida: Provided, That to the extent the 
     sale proceeds exceed the 10 year statistical average of 
     proceeds from Coast Guard property sales as determined by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, the sale proceeds in excess 
     of that average shall be credited to an account of the Coast 
     Guard and be available for the Coast Guard.
       Sec. 515. (a) Establishment of Chief Procurement Officer.--
     The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended as follows:
       (1) In section 103(d) (6 U.S.C. 113(d)), by redesignating 
     paragraph (5) as paragraph (6) and inserting after paragraph 
     (4) the following:
       ``(5) A Chief Procurement Officer.''.
       (2) By redesignating sections 705 through 706 (6 U.S.C. 
     345-346) in order as sections 706 through 707, and by 
     inserting after section 704 the following:

     ``SEC. 705. CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER.

       ``The Chief Procurement Officer appointed under section 
     103(d)(5) shall report to the Secretary.''.

[[Page 13008]]

       (3) In the table of contents in section 1(b), by striking 
     the items relating to sections 705 through 706 and inserting 
     the following:

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

     ``Sec. 44945. Disposition of unclaimed money

       ``Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, unclaimed money 
     recovered at any airport security checkpoint shall be 
     retained by the Transportation Security Administration and 
     shall remain available until expended for the purpose of 
     providing civil aviation security as required in this 
     chapter.''.
       (b) Annual Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the 
     Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration 
     shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a 
     report that contains a detailed description of the amount of 
     unclaimed money recovered in total and at each individual 
     airport, and specifically how the unclaimed money is being 
     used to provide civil aviation security.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 449 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding the 
     following new item after the item relating to section 44944:

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

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

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


                             Point of Order

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


                             Point of Order

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

[[Page 13009]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that sections 512(b) and (c) impose new duties on the 
Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, that section 
514 explicitly supersedes existing law, and that section 525 addresses 
funds in other acts. Therefore, each of the provisions constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The points of order 
are sustained and the provisions are stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 526. (a) Clarification of Prohibition on Contracting 
     With Foreign Incorporated Entities.--Section 835 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 
     395) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period ``, 
     or any subsidiary of such an entity'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``before, on, or'' 
     after the ``completes'';
       (3) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ``which is after 
     the date of enactment of this Act and''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``homeland'' and 
     inserting ``national''.
       (b) Prohibition on Orders Under Task and Delivery Order 
     Contracts.--Section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 395) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Task and Delivery Orders.--After the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, no order may be issued under a 
     task and delivery order contract entered into by the 
     Department of Homeland Security before, on, or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act if the contractor for such 
     contract is treated as an inverted domestic corporation under 
     subsection (b).''.


                             Point of Order

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

                              {time}  1000

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

[[Page 13010]]

  We have kept the language in section (a) under this going forward for 
future contracts in the spirit of compromise with the gentleman, but I 
understand his concerns. I have other substantive concerns with what 
the gentleman has said, but I think in the spirit of compromise we have 
tried to get an appropriate balance and allow the contract to move 
forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentleman and 
understand the argument that he makes. I would simply say that this 
Congress has had a long time. If the Congress had not eliminated the 
language that we offered last year, that was stricken by a point of 
order, we would not be in this situation of having to look back.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
understand the gentleman's concern. The issue has been addressed in 
other tax laws, but I understand the gentleman's concerns on this and I 
look forward to working with him.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
offer an amendment to a section that has passed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

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

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

                      Alteration of Dollar Amounts

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

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

                              {time}  1015

  We have created the Department of Homeland Security to shepherd us 
into the post-9/11 era. Although Congress and the administration have 
provided resources, they are too little to address this homeland 
security threat. This funding is still woefully inadequate. Now we must 
provide guidance and leadership on this national security issue.
  Let us use the tools that we have to focus on a very important 
national security issue. We owe it to our communities to lead and not 
react.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. I understand that the sponsor has said that she may withdraw 
this amendment, but it is an important issue to draw attention to. I 
rise as a co-chair and a co-founder of the Port Security Caucus in this 
House.
  I come from the State of New Jersey, and we have one of the major 
shipping ports in our Nation just outside the reaches of my 
congressional district in New Jersey. I had an opportunity to visit 
there about a month ago, and I spent the day with the Coast Guard 
traveling around the harbor. I had an opportunity to walk through the 
screening procedures with the customs agents and others who are charged 
with the enormous task of screening and making sure that the millions 
of cargo containers that come in through Port Elizabeth/Port Newark, 
through that particular port, are safe and are not going to put our 
families and communities in danger.
  It is clear if you travel and are familiar with the ports of our 
country, like that major port in New Jersey, that our ports are open 
doors to world commerce. Ports create jobs, they facilitate trade, and 
they are absolutely vital to our economy. That is why port security is 
critically important to the security of our Nation and to the overall 
health of our economy. Port security and economic security are tied 
together hand in hand. They are one and the same.
  The horrific events of 9/11 have shown us how vulnerable we are to 
terrorists

[[Page 13011]]

who are bent on disrupting and destroying our way of life in America. 
Unfortunately, our ports, a gateway to commerce into our country, can 
also be seen as open doors into our Nation by these terrorists and 
those who seek to do us harm.
  The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that a 1-month closure of a major port 
in our country will cost our national economy $60 billion. That is why 
we must fund the Port Security Grants Program to at least the $400 
million level prescribed by the American Association of Port 
Authorities. The Coast Guard estimates that addressing terrorist 
threats at port facilities will cost $5.4 billion over the course of 
the next 10 years, with $1.125 billion of that amount required in the 
first year for purchasing equipment and hiring and training security 
officers and preparing paperwork.
  Without significant Federal support in fiscal year 2005, these new 
Federal requirements are likely to become unfunded Federal mandates and 
large financial burdens on our port facilities all across the country. 
Significant homeland security funds are needed to speed the protection 
of our open doors of commerce. Even though Congress has provided 
funding for port security in past appropriation cycles, this year is 
especially critical because this is the year when the new mandates will 
go into effect.
  The U.S. Coast Guard's first year cost estimate of over a billion 
dollars is consistent with the amount of need shown in each of the 
application rounds for the grants. Port facilities have requested 
nearly a billion dollars in each round for the Port Security Grant 
Program. Federal funds have been available to pay for only 13 to 17 
percent of these needs. We need the Port Security Grants Program to be 
funded at the $400 million level next year.
  While this is significantly higher than last year's appropriations, 
it represents only 36 percent of the projected cost of facilities 
improvements. Compared to the billions allocated to airports and first 
responders and science and technology, this is a modest investment in 
our Nation's security infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, the FBI testified earlier this year that ports are a 
key vulnerability that has attracted interest from terrorist and 
terrorist organizations. We must do all we can to support securing our 
Nation's ports. Communities, neighboring ports, as well as the entire 
Nation depend on the steady and uninterrupted flow of commerce via our 
ports. It would be a mistake to ignore this threat any longer.
  I will close by just reiterating that I serve as the chairman of the 
Port Security Caucus in this body. We have learned an enormous amount 
about our vulnerabilities in the post-9/11 world; and clearly, port 
security is one of the areas where we are still at great risk and at 
great vulnerability.
  I ask the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee as they go to conference to please look to see if there 
are ways to bump up the level of funding that has been included in the 
bill, and I certainly appreciate their hard and very dedicated efforts.
  As I said last night, this is perhaps one of the most important bills 
we will pass this year, and I thank the chairman for his great work on 
this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Millender-McDonald/Ferguson/
Pascrell/Nadler amendment to increase funding for port security. This 
amendment will transfer $275 million from the Disaster Relief Program 
to the Port Security Grant Program, which will then provide a total of 
$400 million for our Nation's seaports. Of course, I support increasing 
funding by much more than this $400 million, but this amendment is an 
extremely modest approach to begin doing something feasible right now 
to protect our Nation, and I firmly support the amendment.
  The Coast Guard has said the amount in this amendment is the absolute 
minimum that is needed. Remember, we are at war. It is time to begin 
acting like it. We all know an attack can come at any time, and we must 
do all that we can do to stop it. That means investing more money in 
port security.
  Frankly, this is a drop in the ocean. The fact is 2 percent of the 
containers of the 6 million containers that come into our ports every 
year are inspected; 98 percent could have an atomic bomb in them, or 
radiological bomb, or anything else, and we do not know about it. The 
fact is we should insist, and this amendment does not do it but it is a 
step in the right direction, and an amendment to do the right thing 
would be ruled out of order, the right thing would be to insist that no 
container gets put on a ship bound for the United States in a foreign 
port until that container is inspected by an American team in the 
foreign port. It is a little late to be discovering in New York or Los 
Angeles that there is a nuclear weapon in a container. And if a foreign 
country does not want an American team in their port, that is fine, 
they are sovereign, but they do not ship anything to the United States. 
That ought to be our policy.
  We ought to spend the several billion dollars a year. If we are 
serious about protecting our people, we ought to spend the several 
billion dollars a year to inspect every container before it is put on a 
ship in a foreign port. We are at war, and this is serious business.
  Last year on this floor I engaged in a colloquy on this subject, and 
a distinguished gentleman on the other side of the aisle said well, we 
will inspect the high-risk containers. And I said, so, well, the 
terrorists will put the weapons in the low-risk containers.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may be referring 
to another section of the bill. This is about port security, not 
container or cargo security. It is about the security of the port 
itself.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am aware of that. And 
I am aware that if I offered an amendment to do what we ought to do, it 
would be ruled out of order, as it was last year, so I am using this 
opportunity to talk about this amendment, to talk about what we really 
ought to do, which the majority would rule out of order if we attempted 
to do it.
  So the fact is what we really ought to do is inspect every container 
in a foreign port. We cannot do that because the administration does 
not take the war being waged against us seriously enough. They think 
the tax cuts are more important for the American people. They will not 
let us spend that money; the majority will not let us spend that kind 
of money, so we are reduced to doing what we are talking about in this 
amendment, which is a very modest step to increase to $400 million the 
total for port security because maybe we will catch in our ports here 
what we elect to put in containers abroad because we did not inspect 
them when they should be inspected.
  So I support the Millender-McDonald amendment as a very modest first 
step. The vote on this amendment will tell whether the Members voting 
take the security of the American people seriously or not. I urge 
Members to take the security of the American people seriously and vote 
for this amendment as a very modest first step.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. My colleagues, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), the gentlewoman from Virginia 
(Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and I represent the Richmond and 
Hampton Roads area of Virginia. Richmond is the home of the Port of 
Richmond. Hampton Roads is not only the home of the Port of Hampton 
Roads, but also the home of the world's largest Navy base and other 
strategic military installations, a nuclear power plant, and an oil 
refinery. It is considered one of the most target-rich areas of the 
Nation for terrorist attack. Each year over 2,500 commercial vessels 
enter the

[[Page 13012]]

Port of Hampton Roads alone, so adequate funding for port security is a 
significant issue for those of us who live in Richmond and Hampton 
Roads.
  To guard against vulnerabilities, such as cargo containers being used 
to smuggle chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or the ships 
themselves being used as weapons, the Coast Guard has estimated it will 
cost approximately $1.1 billion to properly protect our ports from 
terrorism.
  Congress has taken the lead in supporting port security grants by 
appropriating a little over $500 million since 9/11. This bill contains 
another $125 million but still leaves us almost $500 million short of 
the Coast Guard analysis. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) would close the gap by an 
additional $275 million. These funds will ensure that ports will be 
able to pay for adequate security measures to protect all Americans 
against terrorist attacks from our seaports.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her detailed analysis that she 
has provided us which shows that even after the transfer, FEMA will 
have more money than it had last year even though it ran a surplus last 
year of over $500 million.
  Furthermore, I want to thank the gentlewoman for pointing out that 
the $400 million is a small portion of the $16 billion in customs fees 
generated by the maritime industry. This bipartisan amendment is 
supported by the American Association of Port Authorities and the Port 
Security Council of America. I ask that we support the amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman speaks from the East Coast, I 
would like to add support for the gentleman's remarks from the West 
Coast. And thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) for her leadership on this amendment.
   I represent San Diego, California--a large Navy port. I used to say 
we are the biggest Navy port in the world, but the gentleman says it is 
in Virginia, so we will have to fight over that later.
  We have three nuclear reactor aircraft carriers sitting in our harbor 
and a nuclear submarine base right there. I think it is generally 
acknowledged that port security is the weakest link that we have in our 
system right now and where the lowest amount of resources relative to 
need has been put. We simply have got to do a better job.
  The gentleman from New York was talking about containers, and the 
chairman of the subcommittee said we are talking about port security. I 
would note that in most of the ports of the United States there are 
millions of empty containers sitting around and we have no idea what is 
really in them. We call them empties because they supposedly have been 
unloaded, but according to the experts on this, and that is the dock 
workers and the longshoremen of America, the potential for these 
containers to be security risks are very great. It seems to me that we 
should incorporate the inspection of these into our notion of port 
security and give the power to do this to our Coast Guard or other port 
security officials.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, we can talk about container 
security if Members want, but this amendment is about port security. We 
have a great container security program. Every high-risk container is 
searched offshore. We are going to be in 47 foreign ports doing that.

                              {time}  1030

  But please, can we talk about port security? If we want to talk about 
container security, we can do that, but not on this amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. I understand what the chairman is saying. I would argue 
with great respect that the so-called empty containers lying around the 
ports are part of our port weakness. Container security is port 
security. Longshoremen have shown that the way that we inspect, for 
example, ``an empty container'' is through an optical system that 
leaves almost one-third of the container completely invisible to the 
so-called inspection. In addition, most of the inspection techniques do 
not allow us to really know what is inside.
  I was going to do a press conference that would show, after an 
inspection of an empty container, a longshoreman jumping out with an 
Uzi and showing that we can actually bring in weapons of mass 
destruction in these seemingly empty, innocent things.
  So we have got to do a better job. The amendment of the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) ought to be supported, and I 
appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, port security obviously is terribly important, and that 
is why we have provided in this bill $125 million, which is $79 million 
more than was requested and more than the 2004 level. So we are putting 
heavy emphasis on port security in the country.
  Is that enough money? Of course not. There is not enough money in the 
world to perfectly protect everything in America, but we think we have 
on balance provided plenty of money in the bill for port security.
  Number two, I have to oppose this amendment for a second reason, and 
that is probably the most important one. And that is that this would 
dangerously deplete the disaster relief fund, which concerns me 
greatly, and we are just now getting into the heavy part of the 
disaster season. So if there were another offset, this might be more 
attractive to me, but to take the money out of disaster relief is just 
a dangerous thing.
  So I oppose the amendment. I would hope the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) would consider withdrawing the 
amendment, and we will address this issue, I guarantee in the 
conference with the Senate, the other body, as we go along during the 
year. But I appreciate very much the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald), and those who have been speaking with her, in 
bringing up this very, very important issue, and I assure them it is on 
my mind and on the mind of the subcommittee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but I do want to 
challenge something my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
just said. He indicated that every container in foreign ports was 
inspected. That, as I understand it, is far from the facts.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I did not say every container. I said every 
high-risk container.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply suggest that that gives me no comfort. The 
fact is that we have two basic problems with container inspection. The 
idea behind the new system that the administration is talking about is 
to see to it that cargo is inspected before it ever leaves the foreign 
port headed for this country. The problem is that of the major ports 
that are considered potentially dangerous, we are covering only half of 
those ports right now with our own inspection personnel in any 
effective program.
  And I would point out further that the personnel that we have in 
these ports are assigned largely on the basis of 6-month temporary duty 
jobs. That means that just about the time they get to understand the 
ports that they are working in, they go home. No foreign country is 
going to waste any time, invest any effort getting to set up a working 
relationship with people who are going to be gone in 6 months. It would 
be like us hiring somebody on our staffs and then firing them every 6 
months and having to break in a new person. It is a pretty dumb way to 
do business.

[[Page 13013]]

  So while I have great misgivings about the source of money of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and I agree with 
the chairman on that point, I do believe that we need to understand 
there are massive problems associated with port security, and if we do 
not do a whole lot more than the budget resolution allows us to do, 
some day we are going to regret it very much.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize the comments of the distinguished chairman, 
but I appreciate the comments made by the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  I would just commend my colleagues to visualizing ports. For those of 
us who have ports in our communities, and those of us who serve on the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security had an opportunity to see a 
number of working ports around the country, the acreage is huge, and I 
will not upset the chairman. I will not mention containers, because 
this is a question of securing ports.
  The acreage, in and of itself, is massive; and I know that the good 
work that has been done by many of our ports, along with the Coast 
Guard, there have been great strides toward homeland security.
  I would like to cite the Houston Port Authority for its improvement 
on securing its acreage.
  But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is right. The employees 
in many instances are temporary. In many instances, they are from many 
foreign ports. Sometimes they come on shore and are not able to leave 
the area. We think mostly of ports from the water side, if you will, 
but in many ways, there is a lot of influx of traffic, trucking traffic 
that may not be regulated.
  This investment is minor compared to the largeness of the question. 
The gentlewoman takes $400 million from a $2 billion allotment. This, 
of course, responds to the fact that $500 million were unexpended in 
disaster relief. I know that you cannot predict a disaster and a 
disaster may occur at any time. But in viewing ports from very 
different perspectives and different regions of our country, I can 
assure my colleagues that there is nothing probably more important and 
more forgotten even in the good work that the ranking member of this 
appropriations subcommittee and the chairman have done than seeing what 
is going on in our ports. We face a situation in our community where 
the key was not so much the water side of the port; but it was a dry 
side, if I might, the exit and entry of people coming on the grounds 
for a variety of reasons. There was a private security company, and 
there was not the kind of tight security that was necessary. Much havoc 
can be done on the port on dry land as there is a large degree of 
unloading and containers remain on the dry side, if you will, for a 
period of time until they are sent off the grounds. There is a lot of 
ingress and egress problems.
  I would just simply say that the Coast Guard who we asked to rise to 
the occasion after 9/11 did that without the immediate resources by 
being in our waterways both in terms of their civilian work and their 
military work. We just lost our first Coast Guard personnel in the Iraq 
war just recently, a couple of weeks ago, a couple of months ago maybe; 
but this amendment, I think, responds to the fact that it is a great 
challenge to secure these ports. I would ask my colleagues to consider 
this, but I also would hope that the chairman and ranking member would 
consider this amendment in conference.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security, I am very proud to cosponsor this port security amendment 
which would more than triple the Federal funding for security 
enhancements in our ports. I believe that the chairman, I do not say 
this in a condescending way at all, and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee have done an outstanding job with insufficient allocation. 
That is my position. When everything is a priority, nothing is a 
priority. We have to establish priorities based upon assessment, risk 
assessment.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have a national assessment of our most 
vulnerable areas. We have asked for this 2 years ago, we asked for this 
1 year ago, because I think this amendment would not be on the floor. 
Our assessment as laymen indicates that this should be a priority. It 
is our weakest point. One glaring need in this bill begs for more 
resources and that is port security. I fear that providing the same 
level as last year will not suffice. There is a legitimate threat that 
maritime transportation will be used to smuggle people, to smuggle 
weapons or other materials into the United States for the purpose of 
terrorist attacks. We know that. We know that from the intelligence. 
The FBI testified earlier this year that ports suffer from an acute 
vulnerability. How could we allow this to continue in a time of 
heightened risk?
  In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed the Maritime Transportation and 
Security Act. That act required, among other things, the establishment 
of a maritime security committee and security plans for facilities and 
vessels. The deadline of July 1 for this mandate is only a few weeks 
off. I hope everyone in the Chamber understands that in 2 weeks that 
mandate about our port security must go into effect. Or shall it be 
like all the other mandates we have had, for instance, dealing with 
airlines?
  To meet these mandates, the MTSA authorized a grant program to help 
pay for security investments and enhancements. While the committee 
improved upon the disturbingly insufficient funds requested by this 
administration, here we go again, Democrats and Republicans from both 
sides of the aisle are not accepting what the administration has put 
forth. Thank goodness. We talk about security out of one side of our 
mouth, and then we provide the proposals that do not meet these 
priorities. That is a fact of life. The Coast Guard estimates that the 
first year of cost compliance with the Maritime Transportation Security 
Act will be $1.2 billion. Demand from the ports is far outweighing the 
supply of assistance. The Coast Guard, remember that forgotten branch 
of our service, is now a prominent part of security in America.
  In the first 3 rounds of grant awards, and I would ask the gentleman 
from Kentucky to please heed this, this is a priority, this is serious 
business, and I know he takes it seriously, the DHS funded less than 20 
percent of the submitted applications. How can we stand on the floor of 
the House and say that this is now sufficient money to deal with what 
we have all considered to be and deemed such a priority when only 20 
percent of the applications have been responded to? Many deserving 
applications to help install access controls to our ports, surveillance 
equipment, communications upgrades, really lacking, and physical 
enhancement at ports around the Nation had to be denied because of a 
lack of funds.
  We are not asking to put more money into this particular part of the 
budget. We are saying, let us shift some dollars from this part of the 
budget to that part of the budget. When everything is a priority, 
nothing is a priority.
  The Port of New York and New Jersey, the largest on the east coast, 
generates 229,000 jobs and $14.6 billion in gross domestic product. It 
is a major economic driver for the metropolitan area. I would say that 
we could obviously duplicate this throughout the entire country.
  I ask the chairman to please address this. I appreciate all that he 
and the ranking member have done in this area.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing this 
amendment. I thank the indulgence of the chairman and the ranking 
member and do urge them to try to find funding for this very critical 
national security issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

[[Page 13014]]



                              {time}  1045


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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

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

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the American people should be outraged by 
the actions on this floor just a short time ago, actions that would 
allow the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with a $10 
billion contract for a corporate expatriate. A corporate expatriate, a 
company that goes offshore, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, other places, sets 
up a shell corporation all for the purpose of diminishing their tax 
liability; that is, not paying the taxes that they should be paying to 
the United States of America.
  The Republican leadership has finally after 18 months relented on 
their opposition to closing the loopholes in the ban on Department of 
Homeland Security contracts to corporate expatriates, but as so often 
happens with the Republican House leadership, they have said yes on the 
one hand and no on the other. They agree that it is wrong for the 
government to contract with companies who go offshore in order to avoid 
their tax liability, but at the first possible chance they grant an 
exemption to this ban by allowing the largest Homeland Security 
contract to date to go to one of the worst offenders, Accenture of 
Bermuda.
  That is why I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Our amendment will prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from 
spending any appropriated funds to carry out any contracts with an 
entity which qualifies as an inverted company or partnership under the 
law. The underlying bill will close loopholes that allow companies 
which have already incorporated in Bermuda and their domestic 
subsidiaries to receive contracts, loopholes that essentially gutted a 
ban that this House passed in July of 2002 by a vote of 318 to 100. But 
at the same time, without this amendment we will allow the Department 
of Homeland Security to move forward on a $10 billion contract to just 
such a company.
  Accenture claims they were never an American company. Let us look at 
the facts. They were a part of Arthur Andersen until 2000. They 
incorporated in Bermuda in 2001. Their chief executive officer is based 
in Dallas, Texas. Their stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
  More importantly, let us look at numbers. Even as Accenture reported 
that its American earnings increased by over $319 million in 2003, its 
U.S. tax liability decreased by almost $240 million. Simply stated, 
their revenues are going up; their tax liability is going down. 
Accenture, this is a company which has set up an elaborate corporate 
structure ranging from Bermuda to Luxembourg to Switzerland so that 
they can shift income overseas and reduce their overall U.S. tax 
burden.
  What is the result? Good corporate citizens loyal to the United 
States, companies that live up to their responsibilities like the two 
who were underbid in this contract, they are put at a competitive 
disadvantage. These are other bidders, and it has been said that we 
would not be able to move quickly. There were two other bidders in this 
effort. We can move quickly on getting this task done.
  Stanley Works is a Connecticut company, which considered incorporated 
in Bermuda, reconsidered, and they have said: Not only are we 
disadvantaged against our foreign competitors, but two of our major 
U.S. competitors have a significant advantage over Stanley Works 
because they are already incorporated in Bermuda.
  Our Tax Code should not reward companies for moving overseas. It 
should reward them for staying here, for contributing to our economy, 
for creating good jobs. And by giving lucrative government contracts to 
companies setting up a post office box in Bermuda, Mr. Chairman, we are 
making matters worse.
  The fact is we are in a time of war. We have troops serving overseas. 
They are in harm's way every single day to protect this great country. 
We are struggling to fully equip, as this bill points out, our first 
responders, ensure the safety of our ports and our air transit. We 
simply cannot afford to reward companies that accept the benefits of 
American citizenship without living up to their responsibilities. We 
are talking about $5 billion in revenues. Such behavior is wrong. It 
offends our values as Americans.
  Very quickly, I might add, some will say that we are going to be 
wound up in lawsuits if we do not go forward. Not true. It is untrue. 
All of the legal research has concluded that the government would have 
little liability beyond the $10 billion contract minimum even if that 
work has been performed. So do not let them get up and talk about 
spurious argument. The fact of the matter is this is a company that has 
gone offshore not to pay its taxes, and they are getting a $10 billion 
reward. We should level the playing field and help good corporate 
citizens.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The gentlewoman is entitled to her strong opinion but not her own 
facts. She notes that troops overseas need help. The reality is if her 
amendment passes, this will have to be recompeted and it will push back 
protecting our borders another 2 years.
  A lot of companies invested money in this. Homeland Security invested 
money in going through these. This will have to start again. The bids 
of the losers in this particular case will be made public. Everyone 
will have a starting place. This pushes the outcome to protect our 
homeland 2 years. So this does not do anything to protect the homeland, 
number one.
  Number two, Accenture, to my understanding, pays an effective tax 
rate for fiscal year 2004 of 34.8 percent. The two competitors in this 
pay, in their recent 10-K filings, 31.3 percent and 28 percent 
respectively.
  I ask the gentlewoman where is the tax advantage if they are paying a 
higher percentage of their taxes? Does she know?
  There is no tax advantage.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis) is saying is that they pay that effective tax rate on their 
profits. Right?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Yes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, so does the gentleman know how much of 
their income has been stripped out by their use of this foreign 
approach of setting up their corporation abroad? In other words, he is 
just talking about their tax rate on the little bit of income they 
leave here, not on the $100 million that they shifted out on which they 
pay practically nothing.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, 
obviously it is the usual subterfuge on this. As a primer, they pay 
taxes on profits. They do not pay taxes on their losses.
  But we are talking here about an effective tax rate, not the tax rate 
itself, which of course would be equal for U.S. income.
  All work performed on this contract is performed in the United 
States. They were awarded this contract and the experts, the career 
civil servants who looked at this, decided this was the best 
procurement to protect the homeland. What they would have us do, the 
author of this would say let us not take the best defense we can get 
for the homeland, let us take something else. Let us pay a little more, 
let us get a little bit less because we want to settle the score 
because the parent company of the U.S.-based company that won this 
procurement somehow should be

[[Page 13015]]

punished, even though all the work will be performed in the United 
States. And Accenture LLP led the SMART Border Alliance, which 
represents 31 U.S. companies employing 330,000 people in 50 States. 
Again, the US-VISIT program led the source of selection process here 
and chose this as the most effective means, not just cost effective but 
technically effective means, to protect the homeland, and they want to 
throw that out the window and say we will take second best for some 
other reason.
  The time to address this, frankly, was at the time of the 
procurement. Congress held hearings on this. We had an opportunity on 
this procurement before it was let to do something on that in the 
hearings.
  As I noted before, they do not receive a competitive advantage on 
this. Accenture is not a corporate inversion. This was a global 
partnership and all of their U.S.-based work of course they pay taxes 
on in the United States.
  The thing I worry about most, though, is retaliation. Right now in 
information technology we are running an $8 billion trade surplus. This 
jeopardizes that surplus by inviting retaliation from other countries 
in the globe where we currently maintain a trade surplus with 
retaliation against U.S. companies doing business in those different 
countries, and I think that would be a disaster for the U.S. economy, 
something that my district in Northern Virginia knows something about, 
being one of the leaders in this. I do not think we should reduce the 
safety and security of the U.S. to settle a political score in this 
particular case.
  Why should U.S. taxpayers pay more money and take, in the opinion of 
the career civil servants, a secondary technical solution to protect 
our homeland?
  I also want to note no jobs are being outsourced. All the work on 
this contract is being performed in the United States. Accenture I do 
not even believe has any employees in Bermuda. Every cent of taxes that 
is earned on this will be paid here. The CEO of Accenture lives in 
Texas. Their Chief Financial Officer lives in Texas. And the idea that 
somehow they are not employing Americans or these jobs are going 
offshore or any intimation of that is patently false.
  Let us take a look at the procurement itself because I think it is 
important. It is creating a nationwide entry and exit tracking system 
for foreign nationals visiting the United States. This amendment delays 
that for 2 years. I do not think our homeland needs that. I do not 
think the security in this country needs that. I urge defeating the 
amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, let me explain 
to the Members what is happening here.
  We have been in negotiations about overall budget issues for the last 
day and a half trying to reach accommodation between both sides. Until 
agreement was reached or until it appeared that agreement would be 
reached, we have been unable to agree to any time limits. Now it 
appears there is some progress being made, and we would like to 
facilitate that by trying to take measures which would enable us to 
finish this bill today so that Members can go home before 10 o'clock 
tonight. So we checked to find out how many speakers were on each side, 
and I thought that with this 20 minutes on each side, there would be 
enough for every speaker who had indicated a desire to speak.
  So the gentleman is making a good-faith effort to limit the timetable 
based on discussions that he has had with us. And unless someone has 
real heartburn about it, I would appreciate if the gentleman's motion 
would be agreed to.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think we could expedite, also, time 
limits. I think there is a paper that we are waiting for over here, and 
if we could expedite that, I think we can come to an agreement.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that 20 minutes would be 
controlled by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and 20 
minutes by someone else on the other side.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis), yes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Let me restate the unanimous consent 
request by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Forty minutes equally 
divided by a proponent and opponent, divided and controlled, and on 
this amendment the time will be controlled by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis).
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and subject 
to my reservation, if I could just ask for clarification. This will be 
20 minutes per side on this amendment. The gentleman does not envision 
any other amendments to the amendment being offered? Is that correct?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, this unanimous consent would say this 
amendment and all amendments thereto.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, 
does the gentleman anticipate any amendments to this amendment?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. No, Mr. Chairman. We do not at this time anticipate any 
further amendments to this amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman be willing to modify 
his 20 minutes to a side then on this amendment, 20 minutes to a side? 
Because if someone were to come forward with an amendment to this 
amendment, I am confident it would require additional time on our part.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Perhaps 
we could handle it by simply saying that if after the assurances of the 
gentleman that no additional amendment would be offered, if one is 
offered, there will be no further agreements on time limits today.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
request of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) is agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, we can handle this quicker than 20 minutes. 
Just accept the amendment. Just do a unanimous consent and accept this 
amendment, and we are out of here.
  I cannot believe the discussion I have heard on homeland security 
funding. Anybody watching this debate would have to conclude that the 
integrity and the honor and what America stands for throughout the 
world and throughout history is all about money. That is all that 
matters. Nothing else matters.
  We are talking about giving to a company that has renounced its U.S. 
citizenship a $10 billion contract and

[[Page 13016]]

putting them in charge of border security. What a ridiculous idea. A 
foreign company in charge of our borders, rewarding a company that 
said, We don't want to be an American company anymore. That is not 
important to us. What is important to us is money. Give us more money.
  This company has a great history of just being interested in money. 
They have demonstrated throughout the time that they have been in 
existence all they care about is money. Being an American is not 
important.
  I think this absolutely desecrates the Declaration of Independence 
and those great men and women, or the great men that signed it, women 
would have if they had been allowed to, and especially that last 
sentence that says: ``In support of this declaration, we mutually 
pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.''
  Is the security of this Nation and the future of this country not any 
more important to those that would vote against this amendment than to 
say it is about money? Throughout history this country has been willing 
to pay any price, we have been willing to sacrifice whatever we had, to 
keep this country great, to keep it strong, to do what was necessary to 
preserve freedom and liberty and the pursuit of happiness and 
opportunity for everybody.
  Yet, you come to this floor, and I hope I would get to be there for 
those of you who will vote against this amendment, so you can explain 
to your children and grandchildren, Son, granddaughter, it is not about 
being an American, it is not in your heart, it is not about what you 
have to do to make this place what it is. It is about money. And we 
failed. We failed because we did not want anybody to have to sacrifice 
just a little bit. We made it possible for companies to put themselves 
together, move offshore and cheat good, honest, hard-working taxpayers, 
and take advantage of them.
  How can you face those men and women that are going to come back from 
the Middle East and that put their lives on the line, and they are 
going to have to go to work and pay taxes? How are you going to face 
them when you say, Well, I thought it was a good idea to take care of 
this bunch of shysters that put this company together and went offshore 
and cheated you out of a few hundred million dollars. I think that is a 
great idea, and I wanted to support that.
  If you want to support it, that is the thing for you to do. Stand up 
today and be counted. Say it is not about integrity, it is not about 
honor, it is not about that great spirit that lives in the hearts of 
all Americans. It is about money, and we are going to make sure that 
all of the rich people we can find, we are going to give them all the 
money they can get.
  You are going to keep doing this, and you are going to destroy this 
great Nation. Anybody that could watch this debate can only conclude 
that the people that are in charge of this House care about only one 
thing, making their rich friends richer. And if you can vote for this, 
God help you.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say this is about the best technology to 
defend the borders. I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the 
United States made up of American companies in opposition to this 
amendment. I have a letter from the Professional Services Council made 
up of American companies in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut, as I did the other day in the committee.
  Let me say, first of all, as the gentleman from Virginia has 
indicated, this is about a 2-year delay in awarding the contract. So 
when the gentleman from Arkansas asks how are you going to explain to 
American soldiers coming back, I am going to tell them it is about 
their security, it is about getting a contract out there so we can get 
this program in place. It is about security, and that is what this 
issue is really about.
  The gentleman also talked about honor and integrity. Yes, it is about 
honor and integrity. We happen to enter into lawful agreements with 
other countries, it is called the World Trade Organization, they are 
called trade agreements, and we are the biggest beneficiaries of the 
government procurement part of those agreements.
  The United States has a huge trade surplus in the services sector 
thanks in part to U.S. firms winning government procurement overseeas.
  What the gentlewoman is talking about on this amendment is cutting 
off our nose to spite ourselves, because, of course, there would be 
retaliation against U.S. firms and workers who export services 
overseas.
   Is the gentlewoman suggesting that Daimler-Chrysler should not be 
allowed to bid on any contracts here in the United States? Similarly, 
should we not want to be able to bid on contracts for building an 
airport in Paris or in Tokyo or some other place? Of course we want to. 
We have to abide by our agreements, and you do not just do it by doing 
it this way.
  Let me just say about the issue of Accenture itself, all this talk 
about the taxes here. Those charges are erroneous. The effective rate 
of taxation paid by Accenture is 34.8 percent. The other companies that 
bid on this pay much less taxes. In fact, Lockheed Martin paid 31.3 
percent effective tax, and Computer Sciences Corporation, the other 
bidder on this, paid 28 percent. So this is a company paying its taxes 
in the United States on the business it does here in the United States.
  That is what this really is all about. All the work is being done in 
this country; all the jobs are going to be here; and all the taxes are 
going to be paid on the business here.
  This is one of those things that comes up on the floor every once in 
a while, where people want to feel good, beat their breast, go home to 
their constituents. But it is bad public policy, it is terrible public 
policy, it violates all of our agreements, it is bad policy; and we 
ought to defeat this bill.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, there are 330,000 American 
jobs in the contract that is currently being let to Accenture and its 
American corporate subsidiaries. But the other side would just delay 
those jobs at least 2 years and the creation of those jobs as they 
rebid this contract and recompete this contract and keep our borders 
less safe.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
correct, and that is why we should not delay that.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who has been battling on this issue for the 
last several years.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this last bizarre argument that was made 
that this amendment would somehow violate our world trade obligations, 
does the gentleman understand that argument to be that we are forced to 
outsource our national security and our homeland security to China or 
France, which are WTO members? That seemed to be the logical extension 
of this bizarre new argument.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there 
are two things to remember: Bermuda is not part of the WTO; and, 
secondly, President Bush said he would never check with another country 
before deciding about American national security.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say something to the gentleman who spoke a 
moment ago about the ``beating on your chest'' about this issue. I have 
brought this issue up now in the Committee on Ways and Means 
consistently for 3 years. We cannot even get a vote on it. This is not 
an appropriations issue in the end; this is really a tax issue.

[[Page 13017]]

  The gentleman from Virginia said a moment ago there are no employees 
from Accenture in Bermuda. That is the point. That is precisely the 
point. It is merely a post office box rented for $27,000. Does anybody 
believe that Tyco is a Bermuda-based company?
  Why are we here today debating this issue? Joint Tax has said, and 
listen to this carefully, $5 billion would come to the American 
Treasury if we would simply send these folks their tax bill.
  I want to ask Members of this body today this question as you vote: 
What would the IRS do to you next Monday if you renounced your 
citizenship and said you were really a citizen of Bermuda?
   This is not an argument about patriotism. This is an argument about 
that woman on Wall Street who said, ``Maybe it is time that patriotism 
took a back seat to profits.'' Tell that to the moms and dads of 
134,000 kids in Iraq, 20,000 kids in Afghanistan, troops committed to 
Haiti and Bosnia as well. And these people do not want to pay their 
corporate taxes? They are protected by these men and women, these 
soldiers who serve honorably and with distinction every day.
  You know what this argument is about, because the American people 
know what this argument is about, it is about money. That is all it is 
about, money.
  Then the argument becomes, well, let us give those who left, went to 
Bermuda, moved money to the Cayman Islands, and Luxembourg, let us give 
them a permanent advantage competitively over those who have chosen to 
stay, like Stanley Works in Connecticut, and ask them to compete in a 
bidding process where one side does not have to worry about corporate 
taxes.
  This is indeed an argument about patriotism, and it is an argument 
about the fact that these companies do not have, and I repeat, do not 
have employees in Bermuda. They have instead a post office box. $27,000 
is what it costs to open a post office box in Bermuda and avoid 
millions in U.S. taxes. It is indeed about money.
  We ought to have the backbone here to stand up and say, once and for 
all, very simply, like the American people who send their sons and 
daughters off to war, either you are in or you are out. That is what 
this argument is about. It is not about the WTO and the bidding 
process. Bermuda is not in the WTO.
  But I know this: when the sun sets on this argument today, the 
Committee on Ways and Means still will not take this issue up. And I 
would say this to the people that are on the other side on this issue, 
put this question in front of this body in an open, fair vote with an 
opportunity for all of us to express ourselves, and I will tell you 
what: I will eat the piece of paper it is on if we do not get 350 votes 
to end this practice. And you know it, and you stop it from coming to 
the floor time and again.
  You can do something about this today with a small start and then do 
something about it permanently.
  When I hear these folks say this is not about patriotism, tell that 
to the moms and dads of those kids who are over in Afghanistan and Iraq 
that these companies do not want to pay their corporate taxes to 
support them and give them the best equipment they need.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been very 
eloquent, but let me just say this to him: make it clear, this is not 
about the people of Bermuda, probably friends of ours, probably people 
who served with us, working very hard, working in the corporate 
structure. This is about homeland security.
  I serve on the Subcommittee on Immigration. Let me tell you, we have 
the opportunity to delay this for 2 years, to rebid this for American 
companies that will create those same 330,000 jobs. I just want the 
gentleman, if he would, to accede to that point, that we can recreate 
these jobs by rebidding.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is 
no question. This is about the failure of Congress.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me correct a couple of statements made. First of 
all, this is not a company that ever left America. This is a global 
partnership at one point that as they looked at the new business model, 
they looked at a place globally in the partnership that had worked 
across the world.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I will yield on your time. Do you have the 
time, or are you just trying to interrupt me so I cannot get a stream 
of thought? You have ample opportunity to rebut me on the time allotted 
to you.
  So they were never an American company, and this is not a corporate 
inversion under the current law, and the gentleman knows that, and the 
author of this amendment knows that.
  Secondly, Bermuda is a British territory. Britain is a member of the 
World Trade Organization. To say they are not is fallacious, and I 
think we ought to at least keep this on a factual level. We have 
differing opinions, which I respect on this; but let us at least argue 
from the same basis of facts.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

                              {time}  1115

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

[[Page 13018]]

headquartered in my community for 50 years, employing union machinists, 
union teamsters and painters, was purchased by Daimler-Benz, a German 
company, and the Germans were not our friends in Iraq for a while. Now 
the Germans are our friends, because people find out we need them. But 
there was an attempt to punish a foreign corporation by making it 
impossible for my employees in my district to be able to bid on a 
contract.
  I would suggest the analogy is exactly the same. I pushed back to 
protect those jobs. I think we err if we mix apples and oranges and try 
and throw this contract out.

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

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

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

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I just want to say I am 
perplexed by the notion that we should leave this contract in place 
because Accenture will hire Americans to do the work. My assumption is 
that the two American companies who stay here and pay taxes would do 
the very same.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for offering 
this amendment to stop this $10 billion government contract to 
Accenture. I do not have to explain to anybody in this room why this 
practice that we have here I think makes no sense at all. A lot of the 
American companies have decided to evade their Federal tax 
responsibilities. If you follow this debate, maybe they should all go. 
It seems it is trying to give us some idea that that is better for us.
  But adding insult to injury, this Federal Government turns around and 
gives billions of dollars worth of contracts to those very companies 
who will not pay their share.
  Corporate expatriates, as my colleagues know, cost us the $5 billion. 
And when they got this contract, as a member of the Committee on 
Homeland Security, I was both outraged and flabbergasted to learn that 
they were going to be responsible for launching the US-VISIT program at 
our 50 busiest land borders. One of them is just outside my district, 
in Buffalo, the Peace Bridge.
  What do you think my constituents said to me when they learned the 
company responsible for securing the border, a company funded by their 
tax dollars, does not pay taxes itself? That the very company that was 
going to have the important responsibility of tracking foreign visitors 
is in itself a foreign visitor?
  Not only is the contract an insult, it flew in the face of 
congressional intent. In July of 2002, the House passed an amendment 
sponsored by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to prohibit 
the Department from awarding contracts to corporate expatriates. 
Unfortunately, it could not block the companies already moving to 
Bermuda, but we have been trying to close those loopholes.
  Last year, I offered an amendment to Project BioShield that would 
have barred expatriate corporations from receiving $5 billion worth of 
contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, but it was voted 
down along party lines. But this week we achieve a partial victory.
  The House Committee on Rules of which I am a member granted 
protection to part of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) 
that would close the loopholes in homeland security contracting ban, 
and the amendment easily passed the Committee on Appropriations.
  As a long-time member of the Committee on Rules, I can tell my 
colleagues that is no small feat. As many of us joke, we should 
probably put a sign above the door to the Committee on Rules room like 
that hung above the gates of hell in ``Dante's Inferno'' that says, 
``All hope abandon, ye who enter here!''
  It is no secret that the Committee on Rules is used by the 
Republicans to kill amendments before they can reach the floor for 
debate and to substantially restrict debate on legislation having a 
vast impact on this public.
  But 2 days ago a miracle occurred, and we were able to protect the 
loophole provision on the Delauro-Berry amendment, but this fight is 
not over.
  It does not make any sense, and America knows it. What in the world 
are we doing here? We are reading every day of the giveaway contract, 
the no-bid contract to Halliburton that

[[Page 13019]]

is causing us so much harm and delivering no goods in Iraq, and then we 
sit here in this Congress and protect the giving of a contract to a 
corporation that has refused to pay its American taxes. Will my 
colleagues think about that? They bid against two companies staying 
here, good corporate American citizens who are at a disadvantage 
because the company who got the contract does not have to pay those 
taxes.
  It is an outrage, and I think that today we will show that this House 
of Representatives believes that it is an outrage. I agree with what my 
colleagues said before: if this bill would ever be allowed by the 
Committee on Rules to come here for a full debate and vote, we would 
really show America that most people in this Congress do not like what 
the leadership is foisting on us.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I agree in principle with my 
good friends on the other side of this issue. I agree with my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), that it was 
wrong what Stanley Works did to leave Connecticut, to save some tax 
money, and to relocate their corporate headquarters in Bermuda, and 
move much of its production operations overseas. I agree that we ought 
to amend the Tax Code to punish firms that deliberately relocate to 
take advantage of foreign tax shelters.
  But while I agree in principle with what is driving this discussion, 
I think we all understand that while we are entitled to our own 
opinions, we are not entitled to our own set of facts. And I would say 
to my friends on the other side, it is the facts that get in the way of 
this debate.
  The facts are that Accenture is not a corporate inversion. The 
General Accounting Office said that. In fact, Accenture is a U.S. 
business. It is a partnership in Illinois; it employs more than 25,000 
people, virtually all of them are Americans. The fact is that this is 
an American team of companies that we are talking about. It is a good 
team of major American firms, firms like Raytheon, Dell, AT&T, Sprint. 
Mr. Chairman, 330,000 U.S. jobs are involved in this team, 35,000 in 
Texas, 30,000 in California, 16,000 in Virginia, 14,000 in Florida, 
13,000 in Massachusetts, I would tell my very good friend from 
Massachusetts. These are American jobs, and all of the work is going to 
be done in the United States. All of the profit is going to be subject 
to Federal income taxes. Thirty-eight percent is going to go to small 
businesses. The same kind of small businesses that we have been trying 
to help.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are talking about is the executive branch trying 
to do what we required them to do. We required them by law to go ahead 
and to find a way to secure the 50 largest border entries by the end of 
this year, and to secure the ports by the end of next year. And they 
found that there were three of the very best teams who could accomplish 
this objective by being willing to hire the best American employees and 
invest millions of dollars to do it right.
  Lockheed and CSC are terrific teams. They are not complaining about 
this, because they know it was completely legitimate, this competitive 
bidding process. They are not complaining because they know they lost 
fair and square. The reason why this team won is because they had the 
ability to best match what the Congress required them to do. They spent 
millions, they pulled together the best technical people, and they came 
up with the most innovative concept, the best price, the best quality, 
the best likelihood of performance in meeting the Congress' 
requirements. That is why they got the contract. Steve Pearlstein of 
the Washington Post described how they legitimately won this contract.
  Now, imagine the precedent. DHS awarded this contract completely 
legitimately, the Congress comes in and says, oh, wait a minute, we are 
going to pull it back. We are not going to let them get this contract. 
Obviously we are going to get sued. Obviously it is going to take 
months in the courts. Obviously, we cannot have a fair bidding process 
now because the other two competitors now know exactly what the Federal 
Government was looking for, they know exactly what the cost structure 
needs to be, they know exactly all the innovative concepts that the 
company put together.
  The fact is, this is good for the United States and its workforce. 
These are American firms. Now, sure, we live in a global environment, 
but this is an American business. They are doing good work. If we set 
this precedent, it will come back to haunt us for generations.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  We have had facts put out by my friend from Virginia, both of my 
friends from Virginia and others, and I would like to take a moment to 
look philosophically at this. Building on what the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) just said, this really is about the cause of 
freedom and ensuring that we have access to the best quality product at 
the lowest possible price. We just this week passed the American Jobs 
Creation Act. One of the reasons I was so proud of that measure is that 
rather than constantly pointing the finger outward, it led us to look 
at ourselves. What is it that encourages the flow of capital and 
products and services across borders?
  The fact of the matter is, we in the United States of America have a 
tax and a regulatory burden which creates great challenges. I believe 
that we need to realize that as Americans. The patriotic thing to do, I 
would say to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the patriotic 
thing that we should do is to continue to do everything that we can to 
encourage greater freedom. That is why this measure which counters, 
counters completely a decision that was made, hurts the United States 
of America, hurts the cause of our homeland security by, in fact, 
saying to the American taxpayer, you cannot have access to the best 
possible quality at the lowest possible price.

                              {time}  1130

  I urge a ``no'' vote on the DeLauro amendment.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to this amendment, and I want to once again restate some of the facts 
because I think there has been a lot of false allegations here.
  Accenture is a U.S.-based partnership. Accenture was never an 
inversion corporation that moved from the U.S. to offshore. Accenture 
will be paying taxes on all the income that is going to be generated by 
this contract. And, in fact, if you look at recent history at the tax 
rate, the Federal tax rate that Accenture has paid in the past few 
years has been greater than that of the other competitors on this. 
Accenture is a U.S. partnership that employs 25,000 U.S. employees. All 
those employees that are going to be benefiting in this contract with a 
team and a partnership that will comprise 330,000 U.S. workers will be 
paying U.S. income taxes.
  I am very concerned about the precedent we will be setting if we 
adopt an amendment that is being offered today that a company has to be 
solely incorporated in the United States in order to compete for a 
government contract. If we adopt that standard and that standard was 
adopted by the European countries of Germany and France or Japan or 
China, we would be saying to the workers of IBM in the United States, 
the workers of Boeing, the workers of Cisco, the workers in Microsoft 
that you cannot compete for a contract that is being offered by the 
governments of Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain. That would 
be an injustice, and it would ensure that we would be adopting a policy 
emulated by those other countries which would hurt U.S. companies and 
would hurt U.S. workers.
  This is a precedent that could cause great harm to this country, and 
I hope we reject it.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

[[Page 13020]]


  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate on the provision of the 
Department of Homeland Security. That is what we are supposed to be 
talking about here, the security of the Nation.
  The tax obligations of this company are really irrelevant to whether 
or not this contract provides for the United States of America some 
greater degree of security. No one has argued, in fact, that it does 
not. No one has argued that it is not the best company, Accenture in 
this case, to provide the service we need and the technology behind it. 
No one has denied the fact that if we do not do this, if we change the 
rules at this point in time, that in fact now we will have to go back 
to the drawing board. It will be another couple of years before we can 
help secure the borders now, the U.S. VISIT program, and implement it.
  So because this is a national security issue debated in the homeland 
security bill, I urge that this amendment be defeated.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, although I am defending the 
committee's position in this particular case, my understanding is I do 
not have the right to close because I am not a member of the committee.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), because she is a member of committee, has 
the right to close.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, does the gentlewoman have 
any additional speakers?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker to close.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) 
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is unfortunate. First of all, 
you are picking on only one homeland security contract where there are 
literally dozens, more than that, that go to companies that are foreign 
based. They have singled out one. Perhaps there is a bidder in their 
State that did not get it. But retaliation on Federal contracting is 
really not a good thing to be doing on the House floor.
  Secondly, we need to be aware that this will cost the government 
additional money in termination costs, and they are likely to go 
through this, and delay implementation of this procurement for up to 2 
years which means that securing our border and getting the U.S. VISIT 
program up and running will be delayed. This is a homeland security 
bill. This is an anti-homeland security amendment in that case.
  It is important, once again, to note that the winner of the contract 
is an American corporation, but their parent is a global company that 
has a headquarters in Bermuda. They were a global partnership prior to 
doing that. Although the majority of their stock, I understand, is 
American-owned, certainly the bulk of their employees are here. But 
they are global in nature as are so many companies in a changing global 
economic world, a fact of the matter that some of my colleagues do not 
want to face up to.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman, he was 
a counsel to a contractor at one point in his life. Can he imagine how 
we would ever rebid this to either of the other two bidders now that 
they know all of the specifications that the government was looking 
for?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Well, this throws the procurement 
basically up in the air and out the window and delays it, I think, at a 
minimum a couple of years. Worst of all, we know under this contract, 
Texas gets 35,000 jobs. Those jobs, if this amendment becomes law, are 
out the window. They may get some back. They may not get any back. We 
know, for example, in Massachusetts 13,000 jobs come under this. Those 
jobs are out the windows if this is it. Maybe they will get it under 
some other bidding, but there is no assurance of that at all.
  We know for example in Florida, 14,000 jobs; California, 30,000 jobs; 
Illinois, 11,000; Arizona, 12,000, on and on; 330,000 jobs at a time 
when people profess to want job creation. Basically what they are 
saying is let us put these jobs off 2 years because we do not like the 
headquarters where the parent company that is putting this together of 
the winning company, which is an American company, lives. Even though 
all of the jobs will be performed in the United States, appropriate 
security clearances will be cleared by American citizens to perform 
this work.
  I would note once again, there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, 
of companies around the globe that are doing business with the Defense 
Department, Department of Homeland Security, that are foreign based. If 
we cut this off, we are indeed, as one speaker noted, cutting off our 
nose to spite our face. Because, after all, this is a global economy; 
and after all, in this particular area we are running an $8 billion 
trade surplus, trade surplus. And what the proponents of this amendment 
would do is say, we do not care about a trade surplus in this 
particular area. We want to settle some other scores. We do not like 
the global economy. We want to use American dollars only to compete 
with American companies, only to use American companies even if it may 
be an inferior technology, even if it may cost taxpayers more.
  That is what they are saying, and it is very poor precedent, in my 
opinion, for protecting the homeland.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. If, for example, this amendment passed, can 
the gentleman see any legal way that you can turn around and award the 
bid to either of the other two competitor companies?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. It clearly has to be recompeted, and we 
will be wrought with protests.
  I urge that this amendment be soundly defeated and we send the signal 
here that we want to protect the homeland first. This is a homeland 
security bill. It ought to stay that way.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) was the mayor of Alexandria, Virginia. Did the gentleman 
ever void a contract that had been competitively bid?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Not after it was competitively bid when all of 
the factors were legitimately considered.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. How about when they were not all 
legitimately considered?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. There is no question that it was not 
legitimate. This was a legal bid.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Across this country every day mayors void 
contracts.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the indifference of 
the Administration to the outsourcing of American jobs is well known to 
the American people. But now as incredible as it will seem to most 
Americans, the Administration and House Republican leadership are 
intent on actually outsourcing our national security. A foreign-
controlled corporation has received a $10 billion contract, billion 
with a ``B'', to implement a major element of the Administration's 
border security initiative. And that is what this debate is about.
  As usual, the House Republican leadership has this week blessed this 
outsourcing of our national security, even though this action is 
directly in defiance of the will of a strong bipartisan majority of 
this House. With Accenture, the accent is on tax dodging; and with this 
Republican leadership, since the first time we offered an

[[Page 13021]]

amendment to deal with this, the accent has been on protecting and 
enabling abusive corporate tax dodgers.
  Now, the Republican leadership wants to reward those like Accenture. 
It wants to reward those who flee America to fleece America. Not only 
saying, do not worry about paying your fair share of taxes, but it is 
okay to come and get your competitors' share of taxes too. The money 
hardworking people pay in to the Treasury, their money is going to be 
taken and given to a corporation that has fled America.
  What makes this Republican leadership's actions particularly shameful 
is their refusal to hold the wealthy tax-dodging few accountable while 
others sacrifice so very much, sometimes everything that they have.
  We know about the young American men and women around the globe who 
are dying for America. We know of the billions of dollars that American 
taxpayers must expend when this Administration calls on Americans to do 
most all the paying for its adventures around the world. The sacrifice 
that our military is making is measured in blood and the sacrifice of 
the middle-class taxpayers is measured in dollars. But some 
corporations have decided that they do not have to pay their fair share 
of our security.
  Through this amendment we now can demand that they pay their fair 
share. This is a fair-share amendment. When this measure came up under 
the leadership of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) in 
July of 2002, 318 Members of this House voted to impose the same 
restrictions that we are asking for today. And Accenture began hiring 
lobbyists right and left to weaken that amendment. So the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) came back with a bipartisan majority 35 
to 17 in the Committee on Appropriations to approve this restriction.
  Then the Committee on Rules, recognizing that it was violating the 
will of the House, has approved language in this bill that says 
Accenture, despite all these wonderful arguments we have heard this 
morning, is not going to get any more contracts. We are just going to 
give it a $10 billion contract. We are going to give it the big pie it 
has already been rewarded, but it will just not get any crumbs down the 
way. This is an admission that there is strong merit to the arguments 
in favor of the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Let us go through one by one the arguments that have been advanced. 
It is difficult to do that because they can talk about getting their 
facts straight, then not get their argument straight. One of those who 
opposes this amendment has been at this podium declaring that Accenture 
has never been a U.S. company, followed by another speaker who insists 
that Accenture is a U.S. company with jobs all over America.
  Well, on that I have to yield to Accenture. If you turn to their Web 
site, you will see that they declare they have never been a U.S. 
company. The Department of Homeland Security has outsourced this 
contract to a foreign company. But what of the argument that they did 
not leave America after they formed here? No, the answer is they got 
there first and they have set an example for other corporations about 
incorporating abroad. Indeed, this month's issues of Corporate 
Executive Magazine has an ad from Accenture: ``To accomplish more, 
sometimes you need to receive less.''
  And, in fact, in their case, pay less in taxes. And they offer advice 
on, among other things, outsourcing jobs.
  What of the argument that Accenture pays its taxes, everything that 
is legally due? They claim that they pay a higher tax rate than their 
American competitors. Well, I guess it all depends on whether you are 
paying taxes on all your income or part of your income because you are 
able to send some of your income abroad. Indeed, the name Accenture 
will be new to many people because it is a new name. The name Accenture 
did not exist a few years ago. The name Accenture, strangely enough, is 
owned by a foreign corporation and the U.S. company pays hefty 
royalties to this foreign company to use that name in the U.S. What 
Accenture has done is to strip its U.S. earnings out of the country so 
that it can say, we pay taxes on our earnings more than our 
competitors. We just do not pay U.S. taxes on about $200 million of our 
other earnings.
  Let me just say that it used to be that, if you cleaned out a bank 
vault, you would be put on the government's ``most wanted'' list and 
imprisoned. But under this Administration, when you drain the Federal 
Treasury by dodging taxes, you are placed on a ``most wanted'' list for 
government contractors.
  This is wrong. The American people know it is wrong. It is 
indefensible, and there is no good argument in favor of doing this. 
Vote for the DeLauro amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain my ``no'' vote on the 
amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro. I support the principle embodied in 
the amendment: to deny the benefit of large government contracts to 
U.S. companies that purposefully locate offshore to avoid U.S. taxes.
  But in this case, Accenture did not do this. Accenture is a 
combination of foreign and U.S. companies and claims it chose Bermuda, 
in 2001, as a neutral location.
  The USVISIT contract is with the U.S. subsidiaries of Accenture, and 
with many other U.S.-located companies, all of whom employ Americans 
and pay U.S. taxes. We should not interfere with it and disrupt this 
important program.

                              {time}  1145

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


              Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard

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

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

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo) for their hard work on this very 
important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Citizenship and 
Immigration Service under the Department of Homeland Security from 
needlessly and dangerously contracting out work that is inherently 
governmental in nature and essential to maintaining our national 
security. This work is performed by immigration information officers, 
contact representatives and investigative assistants who are well-
trained to understand our country's complex immigration laws and 
regulations. In the course of performing their duties, they often use 
highly classified information to prevent immigration fraud and ensure 
terrorists do not exploit our immigration laws.
  The Office of Management and Budget, OMB, will argue that privatizing 
immigration officers will save taxpayers and the Federal Government 
money. The General Accounting Office, however, has challenged OMB's 
estimated savings derived from privatization. The Comptroller General 
recently

[[Page 13022]]

stated that GAO cannot verify OMB's claims because government agencies 
do not have accounting systems to provide reliable tracking of costs 
and savings, but even if savings could be realized, the fact remains 
that the bottom line should never take precedent over our national 
security.
  We need to have reliable, well-trained and experienced immigration 
personnel, employees who are directly accountable to the Department of 
Homeland Security and not motivated by production quotas set by profit-
oriented contract employers with an historically high rate of turnover.
  Of greater concern, however, is the Department of Homeland Security's 
inability to protect sensitive information and maintain quality control 
of contract workers. This danger is highlighted in a July 2003 GAO 
report that found that the Immigration Service did not have the basic 
infrastructure, including the oversight information and workforce, to 
ensure that its contracting activities were effective.
  Furthermore, in a December 2003 report and in a March 2004 follow-up 
report, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security 
listed contracting procedures as a major management challenge for the 
Department.
  Of equal concern is information in memos from the Department of 
Homeland Security that I received from Senator Lieberman's office. 
These memos contain evidence that Immigration Service management tried 
for months to discourage Homeland Security leadership from implementing 
the privatization review.
  Let me quote two passages from a document prepared by consultants 
from Grant Thornton and PEC Solutions for Immigration Service 
officials. The first passage reads, ``Accomplishing the A-76 study 
under present scope will not achieve the A-76 program's overarching 
operational efficiency objectives, and also will not address the 
current extensive customer service problems.''
  The second passage reads, ``Moving forward with an A-76 competition 
based on business processes limits the agency's ability to implement 
substantial organizational and operational improvements.''
  Clearly, Mr. Chairman, contracting out of immigration provisions has 
every potential of endangering our country's ability to meet our goals 
of having a Department of Homeland Security that is well-armed to 
protect our country from those who would do it harm.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not attempt to address 
the overall issue of contracting out Federal jobs. My amendment is 
narrowly drafted to ensure that the work of immigration officers, which 
is inherently governmental in nature and critical to our national 
security, continues to remain the responsibility of trained and 
experienced Federal employees directly accountable to the Department of 
Homeland Security and not to the bottom line of a private company.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very important national security 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. I agree with the gentlewoman from California, who by the way 
is a very hardworking member of our subcommittee and a very valued 
member. I agree with her that CIS should meet the highest standards in 
evaluating petitions for naturalization or immigration benefits, but I 
do not believe her proposal is justified.
  CIS is in the midst of a critical effort to reduce its very large 
case backlog, while ensuring that it screens applicants for the 
privilege of living here or acquiring citizenship. Our bill demands a 
high degree of accountability from this agency, and we will exercise 
significant oversight into how it achieves the elimination of its 
backlog.
  In the meantime, I believe that the Department deserves some latitude 
to explore new ways of getting this job done and the backlog reduced, 
to include privatizing some functions that may be just as easily 
performed outside of the government, and allows the agency to 
concentrate internally on its core government functions.
  The argument that the positions up for competition are 
``governmental'' begs the question: Immigrants need information and 
help getting through this system, but such service is not inherently 
governmental; and, two, the requirement to have specialized subject 
matter expertise also does not uniquely limit the work to government 
officials.
  So I think the amendment is not necessary. I believe the Department 
should have some leeway in getting this backlog reduced, and so I, 
therefore, ask my colleagues to support us in rejecting this amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
friend from California. One of the most important functions of any 
sovereign nation is determining who can enter the country and who 
cannot.
  In our country we balance many important values in making this 
decision. We have always been an open society that has been enriched by 
new citizens, by visitors and by those who come here to contribute to 
the great dynamism of the American economy.
  At the same time, we cannot be a country that has a welcome mat out 
for everyone in the world because it would suffocate the very dynamism 
of that economy. There obviously are security concerns. Most people in 
the world are very welcome in America because they are people who love 
peace and contribute. There are a few who are most definitely not 
welcome in America because they are security risks.
  Just as our country has to sort this problem out every day, on 
individual cases this problem must be sorted out every day. The people 
who begin the process of sorting this balance out are immigration 
information officers. I can think of no more public function, no more 
core public function than exercising the constitutional responsibility 
of controlling our borders, and the idea that this function would be 
delegated to someone who works for a for-profit firm strikes me as well 
beyond the realm of reason.
  When someone presents his or her papers to begin the process of 
getting into the country, all kinds of questions have to be asked. Are 
the papers true or fraudulent? This is what these officers deal with 
every day. Are the intentions of the person trying to enter the country 
munificent or harmful? This is a judgment that these officers have to 
make every day.
  The information people present to gain access to the country is very 
often private and important only to them, and respecting the privacy of 
the person who tries to get into the country is an important value that 
has to be protected every day.
  If questions arise about the veracity of someone's application, the 
officer needs to go to law enforcement or to intelligence agencies to 
figure out whether the person is whom he or she says they are. Are 
these functions we want performed by someone who is hired out?
  Can we exercise the degree of accountability for control of our 
borders that we need to exercise if the people who are exercising these 
functions are here this year but may not be here next year when a new 
contract is let? Can we be sure that the training that is necessary to 
balance these many competing concerns is going to be adequately given 
to officers who are not sworn employees of the United States? I do not 
think so.
  I understand the debate on privatization is over whether something is 
a core government function or not. I can scarcely think of a function 
that is more an example of a core governmental function than 
controlling access to our borders. Frankly, if controlling access to 
our borders is not a core governmental function, then running the Navy 
is not a core governmental function or conducting foreign intelligence 
is not a core governmental function or perhaps we should privatize 
diplomats, and instead of having ambassadors appointed by the President 
we should hire diplomatic arbitration services because it seems to me 
to be equally the case that it is a core governmental function.

[[Page 13023]]

  One could argue all one wants about efficiency, but there is a higher 
value here than efficiency, and that value is accountability in the 
discharge of our constitutional function in controlling our borders. 
This is not an area where the managers of the Department should have 
discretion because this is a clear case.
  The constitutional responsibility of controlling our borders is a 
pure public function, and it should be carried out by sworn employees 
who are men and women who are responsible to the public voters, 
responsible to this Congress and responsible for the future discharge 
of their responsibilities.
  So I thank my friend from California for offering her amendment. I 
think it is an excellent idea. I would urge Members from both sides to 
enthusiastically support the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of attempting 
to save time and to get us out of here today on this bill, I want to 
engage my ranking member and ask his and others unanimous consent that 
all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 
40 minutes, the time to be equally divided between myself and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that, with the 
exception that the time on our side should be controlled by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), who is authoring the 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I so amend my request.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the gentlemen will suspend, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) raised a point of objection and 
needs to be heard on his reserving his right to object.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, it seems 
that there are a number of people on our side here who are prepared to 
speak to this, and I think that before we agree to a unanimous consent, 
it would be good to poll to see how many Members we have so we are not 
going to be denied an opportunity to present our concerns about this 
and our support for this amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. I think that has been done.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we have a growing list of Members who want to 
give speeches, and I ask the gentleman to withdraw the request for 1 
minute.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I would point out there is a 
growing list of Members who want to get out of here tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The unanimous consent request 
is withdrawn.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish we could decipher our commitment to creating 
jobs from the important responsibility of homeland security. Whenever 
we see these two goals hitting up against each other, the idea of 
privatizing and creating jobs in America versus taking jobs away from 
the government, we would think that job creation has a truly bipartisan 
premise, but my good friends keep utilizing it in the wrong way.
  Homeland security needs accountability. Homeland security clearly 
dictates, if you will, assuredness, preciseness and oversight. It is 
very difficult to ever see homeland security being privatized. In this 
instance many of these employees, although they are dealing with the 
benefits side of homeland security under the immigration benefits 
section, they often use highly classified information to prevent 
immigration fraud and to ensure that terrorists do not exploit the 
immigration laws.
  More importantly, there are people who are standing in line, 
thousands of them for years, who count on Federal employees with the 
kind of interest and commitment and integrity to ensure that the 
process works. Yes, we have a backlog and in fact our committee, the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, just heard from the Director of the Bureau of Citizens and 
Immigration Services that in fact he is presenting the President's plan 
on decreasing that backlog.
  There was nothing in that representation that would suggest that it 
could not be done without the employees present other than the fact 
that I raised the question that we might need more resources to add 
Federal employees who are under oath, who are hired under certain 
conditions to do the job. I cannot imagine that we would argue to 
privatize this very serious and very important task of the Department 
of Homeland Security. It does not make sense. For the Office of 
Management and Budget whose only responsibility is to crunch the 
numbers and find where they can allegedly save money and not make the 
good judgments what is responsible legislation, which is to provide 
secure employees to do secured work, the General Accounting Office 
could not even document that what OMB represents to be a saving would 
be true. The General Accounting Office challenged the OMB's estimated 
savings derived from privatization, and the Comptroller General 
recently stated that GAO cannot verify OMB's claims because government 
agencies do not have those kinds of reliable accounting systems.
  I say to the chairman and the ranking member, and I again cite them 
for their good work, there is no documentation that we can save work, 
but there is documentation that if we privatize this we have no 
oversight into the mishaps, confusion and the absolute inability to 
help us bring down the backlog, at least with adding the resources 
necessary to those Federal hires, those Federal employees, and I thank 
the gentlewoman for this excellent amendment, and for pinpointing a 
weak point, and that is privatization of important services utilized by 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  I would argue vigorously in support of this amendment, but I caution 
my colleagues to realize that these are important and secure matters: 
One, on behalf of those who are standing in line to access 
legalization, which we want them to do; and two, indicating and 
securing the fact that no one can abuse the service; and lastly, I 
would say the oversight of this Congress would be undermined by 
privatizing this very important responsibility. I ask my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 
30 minutes, that the time be equally divided between myself and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, could we not have agreement on 
the limitation? I think it is agreed to by the ranking member and all 
parties on the subcommittee of which the gentleman is a member. Could 
we not have a unanimous consent to limit the debate time?
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not think there 
is anything more important than the debate we are having today. I think 
that those that have something more important to do, I think it is 
perfectly all right for them to go ahead and do it.
  Mr. Chairman, we are having this debate. We are making decisions that 
are going to affect the future of this country. This is a very serious 
matter. We have gotten ourselves, this administration has gotten this 
country in a terrible mess, and one of the things they have done to 
cause this to happen is to outsource, to take jobs that belong,

[[Page 13024]]

that should be done by the government and contract them to somebody 
else.
  I am beginning to wonder if we are going to see a resolution on this 
floor that says all government functions will be contracted to 
Halliburton with a sole source contract agreement, and to ask this 
House to approve such a ridiculous thing.
  We have a serious problem on our borders. It needs to be handled by 
serious people. We have gotten in trouble in Iraq because we have hired 
people to do what should have been a military function or a function of 
the government and turned it over to something else, to somebody that 
had no accountability, somebody that does not have to prove that they 
have done it right. We need to have this debate.
  This administration just simply does not understand the difference in 
getting the job done for the American people and a good excuse when 
they fail. That is where we are right now. And the generations that 
come after us are going to have a terrible mess on their hands to deal 
with. It is all because we have not been responsible in seeing that the 
job got done, and it is time for this body to uphold its responsibility 
and hold these people that are running the government accountable. This 
amendment will make it possible for us to do that.
  I urge the Members of this House to take this bill and what it means 
in this amendment very seriously. We know that when Americans are given 
the task that they will do the job and do it well. When we start 
contracting out these responsibilities of our agencies like this 
amendment prohibits, we do not have any way of knowing what is going to 
happen. We are going to just turn it out. My goodness alive, I cannot 
imagine what kind of ridiculous things might pop up after what we have 
already seen that this administration is willing to do. It is time for 
this body to exercise oversight that we are responsible for using.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take 5 minutes and I trust my 
colleagues are not going to either, but I do want to express my support 
for this amendment. It is a very important issue, a principle upon 
which I could not agree more with the author of the amendment because 
the functions that are going to be contracted out, if this amendment 
does not pass, are in fact inherently governmental.
  We are talking about approximately 1,400 professionals, experienced 
people, who have to apply judgment. They need to determine whether law 
enforcement agencies need to be notified, they need to determine who 
should come into this country, who should be deported, who should be 
arrested. This is not something you want to contract out to private 
firms who may be very well intentioned, but the fact is that ultimately 
it is a profit incentive that motivates them to compete for this 
contract.
  These are governmental jobs that need to continue to be governmental. 
If this goes through, it is like contracting out income tax collection. 
I cannot imagine many more jobs that could be more important that could 
not be more inherently governmental than this. If this amendment does 
not pass, it jeopardizes the safety and security of the American 
people; and certainly it is a slap in the face of the extraordinarily 
good, professional work that is done by the vast, vast majority of 
people working for the Customs and Immigration Services.
  Please support the Roybal-Allard amendment, and let us do the right 
thing by a government that we have every reason to be proud of.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time to try to ask the indulgence of all 
Members on both sides. We had extended debate yesterday on the Interior 
bill, and we have a lot of amendments on this bill. We have been 
negotiating for 2 days trying to reach an overall understanding between 
the parties about how we will proceed on all of the remaining 
appropriation bills between now and August. We are trying to work out 
an arrangement which will allow those bills to proceed in an orderly 
civil manner with minimum of ying and yang, leaving full room for 
Members to offer whatever amendments they want to offer.
  To facilitate that, we are trying to help move this bill along. We 
are getting calls from Members from both sides of the aisle every 10 to 
15 minutes asking when they are going to be able to go home today. I do 
not want to shut off any Member. Every Member has a perfect right to 
address whatever issue concerns them, but I would ask if we do have 
offers of unanimous consent to reach time limits on some of these 
amendments, I would appreciate it if Members would talk to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) or the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), depending on which party, to at least talk with us so we 
understand what your concerns are and Members understand what the 
committee is trying to do because we cannot do opposite things at the 
same time.
  If we are to facilitate Members getting out of here today, we need to 
have reasonable limits on time. Nobody is trying to be arbitrary. The 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has been most cooperative, as has 
been the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). I would ask Members to 
please give us the benefit of the doubt. If we cannot reach reasonable 
time agreement, there is not a prayer that we will get out of here 
before 7 or 8 tonight. Knowing the way this place works, some of the 
very same people who object to time limits at 3:00 will be squawking at 
us at 7:00 because they have not been able to get out of here. I would 
ask Members to work with us. We are trying not to surprise people, and 
we would appreciate the same from other Members.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-
Allard) for offering this amendment.

                              {time}  1215

  The amendment prevents the Department of Homeland Security 
Citizenship and Immigration Services from outsourcing work to 
contractors. The work performed by immigration information officers and 
their colleagues is not only a critical responsibility; it is a 
critical governmental responsibility.
  Our Nation depends on CIS to review immigration applications in a 
timely and judicious manner. Our Nation depends on CIS to discern 
questionable applications and possible threats to our public safety. 
Our Nation depends on CIS to protect our immigration process and to be 
accountable.
  In fact, the General Accounting Office has argued that INS does not 
currently have the infrastructure to contract its work out and still be 
able to ensure success. INS has such a tremendous backlog that full 
entitlements through citizenship are being denied to hundreds of 
thousands of people in this country today because of that backlog. Let 
us give the INS the resources they need to accomplish their tasks, as 
opposed to outsourcing their jobs.
  This work is too important to our government, to the people of our 
Nation. It is too important to all of us to not be done well and not to 
be done properly.
  Clearly, such a governmental responsibility must remain with the 
government. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard). The Department of Homeland 
Security should be prevented from undertaking its privatization review 
of the investigation and adjudication of applications for immigration 
rights and benefits. It is simplistic to assume that privatization 
automatically leads to savings and efficiency. Sometimes it does not, 
and this case is one that clearly does not. Consider that.
  The Department of Homeland Security, that part of the Department of 
Homeland Security which is formally known as the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, does not keep track

[[Page 13025]]

of its existing contractors, according to the General Accounting 
Office.
  Specifically, GAO said the INS, which is now the Department of 
Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services, does not have 
the basic infrastructure, including oversight, information and an 
acquisition workforce in place to ensure that its contracting activity 
is effective. INS has not consistently ensured that acquisition 
personnel are adequately trained to do their jobs, and this is from a 
GAO report less than a year ago.
  Number two, independent parties report that the Department's recent 
contract for similar, but much simpler, work has had disastrous 
results. According to dozens of civil rights advocates, recent 
experience with the national customer service center offers another 
example of the negative impacts of contracting out immigration 
functions and the differences that result from using an outside 
contractor rather than a trained CIS employee. The contrast has been 
profound, and the resulting problems ranging from the frustrating and 
time-wasting, to truly damaging errors.
  Before the June changeover, existing government personnel readily 
solved the majority of these problems. Operators who now answer the 
calls know nothing about the subject of the call and rarely provide 
assistance. So much for contracting out. These operators who work from 
scripts frequently cannot even identify which script they should be 
using and are rarely able to provide meaningful assistance. In fact, 
they often provide answers that convey a clear misunderstanding of the 
subject matter with which they are dealing.
  Number three, the Department, according to internal documents, has 
failed to heed warnings from its own staff and consultants that this 
particular privatization review is ill advised, because it is poorly 
structured, unlikely to generate efficiencies, and inspired in order to 
meet a privatization quota that has been prohibited by Congress and 
repudiated by the administration.
  I have some familiarity with an example of privatization through the 
A-76 process and would like to share it with my colleagues. During 
2000, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service conducted an A-76 
competition for its Military Retired and Annuitant Pay functions, most 
of which are performed in my district in Cleveland. A private 
contractor, ACS Government Solutions Group, was awarded the contract on 
the basis of a very small cost advantage, over $1.9 million over the 
entire 10-year contract period.
  In March of 2003, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
reviewed this A-76 award. It determined that the award to a private 
contractor in 2001 was erroneous. According to the IG, an error 
committed by the private company hired by DFAS to prepare its in-house 
bid resulted in an erroneous high bid by the government. The error was 
compounded by the audit division of the DoD IG, which served as the 
independent review officer and which failed to discover the error. As a 
result, the higher bidder actually won the competition.
  Now, in spite of these findings, DFAS has renewed its contract in 
each succeeding year with the higher bidder. Now, what is the lesson we 
should learn?
  First, privatization does not necessarily equal efficiency. Second, 
privatization does not necessarily lead to savings in cost, and third, 
privatization wastes taxpayers' funds and degrades the performance of 
government work. Vote ``yes'' on the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and prevent a waste of taxpayer funds.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roybal-Allard amendment to 
stop the privatization of immigration information officer positions. As 
the ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have 
serious concerns about the impact this privatization initiative will 
have on our Nation's security. Immigration information officers and 
contact representatives interview immigrants, they review their 
documents for fraudulent and illegal activities, and they perform 
criminal background checks.
  In order to do their jobs, these employees must acquire a large body 
of information and knowledge about our ever-changing and incredibly 
complicated immigration laws. To abandon the years of accumulated 
expertise of this group of Federal employees places our Nation at risk. 
In the war on terror, there is no room for error.
  At a time when we must be focusing on security at our borders, we 
should not create the turmoil that is inherent in competition for these 
security-related jobs. After September 11, this Congress determined 
that giving the critical task of securing passengers and their baggage 
at airports should not be awarded to the lowest bidder, and we 
federalized the TSA screening force. Why would we give an even more 
critical and complex task of reviewing whether a passenger may be a 
terrorist to the lowest bidder? I urge adoption of the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to express his support 
for the Roybal-Allard Amendment to prevent the A-76 privatization 
attempt of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) at 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
  The Department of Homeland Security mission statement reads as 
follows: ``We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. 
We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and 
respond to threats and hazards to the nation. We will ensure safe and 
secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the 
free-flow of commerce.''
  The outsourcing of the positions of Immigration Information Officers 
(IIO), Contact Representatives (CR), and Investigative Assistants (IA) 
is harmful to the DHS mission because these jobs and their functions 
are inherently governmental and vital to national security. Any job 
that requires the officer's knowledge and application of U.S. 
immigration laws and regulations is inherently governmental and crucial 
in determining who is eligible for immigration benefits, as well as 
identifying potential terrorists and national security threats. 
Therefore, these jobs should not be offered to contract providers 
outside of the Federal Government.
  One of my constituents recently wrote to this Member, voicing his 
opposition to the outsourcing plan. This constituent is an 
Investigative Assistant within the BCIS. He writes, ``Given the current 
political climate of heightened security among all federal law 
enforcement agencies, any decision to outsource CIS positions would be 
detrimental to the country. It is imperative for Americans to have 
faith in our government's ability to protect our country. Having 
government workers doing a job of such significance gives the people of 
this nation the confidence and sense of security that is needed in 
these volatile times.''
  He is absolutely right, and this constituent certainly is not alone 
in his views. In the state of Nebraska, the jobs of 115 full-time 
employees within the BCIS are at risk. This number is only behind those 
projected statistics in California and New York. In this Member's 
district alone, 112 jobs are inappropriately at risk due to the A-76 
proposal.
  Now, this Member does not in concept or principle oppose A-76 
privatization. Indeed, this Member has accepted the legitimacy of 
applying A-76 for various other Federal employment positions in his 
District. But obviously this process is badly flawed with suggested 
applications of this procedure in the kind of job positions addressed 
by the Amendment of the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Mrs. 
Roybal-Allard. Its application to described positions in DHS jeopardize 
national security and the proper accomplishments of the mission of the 
agency.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman this Member encourages his colleagues to 
support this Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-
Allard).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Roybal-Allard) will be postponed.

[[Page 13026]]




             Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

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

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

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I ask 
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments 
thereto close in 24 minutes and that the time be equally divided 
between me and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to prevent the use of 
Federal funds by governments who adopt sanctuary policies. These are 
laws that prohibit State or local government entities or officials from 
sending to or receiving from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement information regarding an individual's citizenship or 
immigration status.
  I assume considering the fact that we have had this amendment on the 
floor before and I recall the kind of debate that we had, a great 
amount of that debate will center around the actual law that is on the 
books and not my amendment. I want to stress the fact that there is a 
law. It has been on the books for 10 years. It is section 642(a) of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. 
That law is there.
  This amendment does not change the law, it does not repeal the law, 
it does not add anything to the law. That is the law that is on the 
books. It says States and local governments essentially cannot impede 
the flow of information to the Department and/or stop the flow from the 
Department.
  The problem, of course, is that States and localities around the 
country, a relatively small number but nonetheless a growing number, 
are disregarding that provision of the law. They do not care. They are, 
in fact, adopting things that we consider to be certainly problematic 
and certainly fly in the face of the law. By enacting these misguided 
and illegal sanctuary policies, a handful of local governments have put 
the rest of the country at risk.

                              {time}  1230

  In addition, the refusal of these governments to share information 
with Federal immigration authorities inevitably results in a local law 
enforcement arresting and then releasing criminal aliens who may then 
move on to commit other crimes in the country rather than being 
deported. The Washington Times, for example, reported in June of last 
year that in December there was a rape of a woman in New York, a 
particularly brutal rape and battery. Four of the five men charged in 
the case were illegal immigrants, and three had are prior convictions 
that, in keeping with Federal law, would have allowed their deportation 
had that information been originally provided to the Federal 
authorities.
  As a result of the great amount of public clamor about this 
particular incident, the City of New York has, as I understand it, 
repealed that particular provision of their law so that that is what 
needs to happen, of course, I think, throughout the country.
  In order to prevent these kinds of resolving-door injustices from 
occurring, we must create a financial disincentive for cities and 
States that choose to violate the law. Since September 11 Members of 
both sides of the aisle have bestowed the virtues of intergovernmental 
cooperation between State, local, and Federal law enforcement 
authorities to prevent future terrorist attacks. State and local 
governments should not be able to unilaterally prevent this kind of 
cooperation by disregarding the Federal law and jeopardizing 
antiterrorism efforts.
  A message that continued subversion of Federal immigration law will 
not be

[[Page 13027]]

tolerated must be sent loud and clear, and the prohibition on the 
expenditure of those funds will prevent this.
  We have a very difficult time. The Federal Government has an 
enormously challenging responsibility in trying to both adopt and 
enforce immigration policy. It is made even more difficult, the 
problems are exacerbated a thousand times, when cities and localities 
and States around the Nation decide to enter into this arena and decide 
to begin adopting their own immigration policies. We cannot have 
hundreds of immigration policies developing throughout the country, 
State by State, city by city.
  Once again, I reiterate, my amendment has nothing to do with the law 
that is presently on the books, and I know that there will be a lot of 
discussion about the law, and if someone wants to introduce legislation 
to repeal that law, that is of course their right to do so. But that is 
not what this is about. This is about essentially trying to provide 
some sort of disincentive for people who do violate that law.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find out whether I should 
pursue the point of order or not, and I get different interpretations 
of the gentleman's amendment and what it is intended to do. If it does 
not do much or anything, then I think the amendment is in order. On the 
other hand, the rules say we cannot legislate on an appropriation bill, 
and if it does something, then it seems to me it may not be in order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if I could speak on the point 
of order, as I read the amendment, it says no funds may be used to 
violate the law, and I am prepared to accept that.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman's judgment is the amendment 
does not do anything?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, it says Federal funds cannot be 
used to violate the law. I agree with that. Does the gentleman not?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I know we have Members' concerned and who 
want to discuss this issue. But the amendment has left me confused. But 
I do recall a year ago I was confused by an amendment and after some 
discussion, the House voted the amendment down. And so I am still 
trying to sort out if it does something or does not do something.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, that amendment last year was 
altogether different. As I read this amendment, it is fairly simple. It 
has been modified, obviously, and now just says no funds may be used in 
contravention of section 642(a) of the Act, and I find it to be 
innocuous, frankly.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Colorado agree?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman from 
Kentucky's (Chairman Rogers) definition of an analysis of this 
amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order 
and reserve my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, as the late Ronald Reagan said, here we 
go again. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) offered this ill-
conceived amendment last year, and it was soundly defeated by a vote of 
322 to 102 with all Democrats who voted voting against and a majority 
of the Republican conference also voting against.
  And if I were to listen to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo), he says, well, this does not really do anything to the law. 
Then why do we need it? The reality is the words may be modified, but 
the purpose is the same.
  Number one, this says none of the funds, no funds, will go to any 
municipality, any State entity, any governmental entity for any 
homeland security purpose if they have chosen in a totally legitimate 
way not to violate the privacy laws, not to give information about 
someone's citizenship, like mine, or anyone else's, because that is the 
way the gentleman's amendment originally read. He just scratched it 
out. And that is in essence what he is seeking to do, and it is in 
essence what it does.
  We all know the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) stated 
intention. He wants all of us who look a certain way, who have certain 
names and speak a certain way to have Big Brother filter us out.
  Secondly, this is a coercive action against any State, municipality, 
or other entity to say to that State, municipality, or other entity 
they must do a series of things, including giving information on a 
person's citizenship status, like my citizenship, which I was born in 
this country, to the INS.
  So much for State rights. So much for the local municipalities know 
best. So much for all I have listened to in the last decade from my 
Republican colleagues speaking of State rights, of local rules, of 
States knowing best. And imagine denying critical dollars to protect 
all citizens of a State, county, or local government of homeland 
security funds, funds for police, fire, emergency management and 
preparedness. Not only would that public entity be directly hurt, but 
the Nation itself might be hurt if that State, city, or country is a 
portal, a gateway, into America and having had the funds denied, not 
being able to protect itself and that portal into the rest of the 
country.
  The gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) obsession could very 
well risk the national security of the United States, and this is an 
unfunded mandate on all of those government entities trying to be make 
it an extension of what is the INS. This is the real intent, to make 
every police department, every sheriff, and every law enforcement 
entity an arm of the INS. They have rejected those views. That is why 
we keep hearing this as Hispanic outreach. We do not need it. Reject 
the amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  I would like to inquire of whether or not if someone makes an 
allegation against a former Member that race is being taken into 
consideration by his decisions, whether or not that is, in fact, 
calling another Member a racist and whether or not that is just what 
our colleague just did to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would respond that it is against 
the House rules to engage in personality toward other Members.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, so if our colleague just indicated to 
that the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) consideration was 
because of the way people look and their race, that is a reason to have 
our colleague's words taken down? Is that right?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise all Members to 
refrain from impugning the motives of other Members in the debate and 
discussions on amendments and legislation.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tancredo amendment because 
facts are stubborn things. Allegations, no matter how offensive, no 
matter how predictable from some in this House, have a way of being 
displaced by facts. The fact is federalism is dynamic because 
constitutionally there are responsibilities reserved to the States and 
localities, but more importantly, there are responsibilities 
constitutionally delineated to the Congress of the United States.
  I would remind my colleagues and specifically the preceding speaker 
that Congress, not States or cities, has the sole authority to draft 
and enact immigration policies. By permitting States and localities to 
flaunt Federal law enacting sanctionary policies, Congress is 
effectively allowing local governments to set up their own patchwork of 
individual immigration systems.

[[Page 13028]]

  Mr. Chairman, national security is synonymous with border security. 
Congress must act to put an end to these policies that allow this 
patchwork of different immigration policies based on whatever the whim 
of a certain locality or a certain State may be. We must do that if we 
are to maintain an orderly immigration system and to ensure that 
Federal antiterrorism efforts are successful.
  In contrast to those who would come with tiresome and objectionable 
notions that this is based on race, this is nothing of the sort. This 
is based on national security and understanding that we must know who 
comes into the country. Certainly there should be effective, consistent 
enforcement across the board. That is why I rise in support of this 
amendment and ask the Members to join me in this support.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as I did a year ago, in 
strong opposition to the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) 
amendment. I hope that the Tancredo amendment will be ruled nongermane.
  I felt obligated as an American to come to the House floor to remind 
this body of what America stands for as well as to question why anyone 
in the House of Representatives is offering such an amendment instead 
of focusing on the immigration reform measures such as ``The SOLVE 
Act,'' H.R. 4262, the brainchild of the gentleman from Chicago, 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez). The SOLVE Act would provide for earned 
adjustment to reward hard work, reunify families, establish a temporary 
worker program that protects the United States and foreign workers and 
strengthens national security under the immigration laws of the United 
States.
  The Gutierrez legislation is constructive while, on the other hand, 
the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) amendment fails to promote 
improvement or development.
  As is inscribed in the Statue of Liberty, we need to remember here in 
Congress the generous invitation that the United States has always sent 
to the world. I quote from that inscription.
  ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to 
breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, 
the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden 
door.''

                              {time}  1245

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

                              {time}  1255

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my words, and I would state for 
the Record it was never my intention to impugn the sponsor of this 
amendment in any way, shape, or form.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection?
  Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
is now recognized on the remainder of his time, 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman. I would, though, draw the attention to the 
amendment itself, which does not take into account the fact that many 
people who are immigrants in this country come in different shapes, 
sizes, colors, and races, and this bill does not take that into 
account.
  The amendment would take away any State and local government's 
ability to decide which policies allow them to best serve and protect 
our communities. Yet, that is precisely what all of us desperately need 
them to do.
  State and local police officers are often our first responders in 
times of terrorist attacks. Their jobs are already incredibly difficult 
and incredibly critical. To threaten them with reduced resources is not 
only offensive to the work that they do, it is also dangerous to the 
communities that they strive to protect.

[[Page 13029]]

  I find it interesting that the Republican Party is always out there 
praising America's police department, especially New York City's Police 
Department after 9/11. But in a Dear Colleague that was sent around, an 
example of New York City was used as a place that would lose police 
funding if this amendment passed. Yes, it is actually advocating 
slashing Federal dollars for New York City Police Department.
  This amendment is not only wrong-headed, I just think it is wrong. 
First the Republicans try to slam a bill down our throats to make 
doctors INS agents, now they are doing it with our local police forces.
  This amendment is a direct slap at the New York City Police 
Department, and I believe it is demonstrated in this Dear Colleague. I 
urge everyone to not only vote against this Draconian amendment that 
will leave our cities even more vulnerable to al Qaeda and other 
terrorists, but to actively speak out against this amendment in their 
constituencies.
  I am also told that the GOP is reaching out to Latinos and other 
groups for political benefits. I say to those Latino communities to 
examine that the Republicans say one thing, but their mean-spirited 
legislation speaks louder than any of their words.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, over a century ago, my great-grandfather 
came from Sweden to chop sugarcane in Louisiana. He came for the same 
reason that so many people come to this country from Mexico today--to 
take on some of our society's most difficult jobs, to create a better 
life. And when an illegal entry occurs, it is not the result of the 
policy of the City of Pharr, Roma or McAllen, but they have to cope 
with the consequences of a Federal policy they do not control. If 
undocumented workers, who are too often the victims of crime, hesitate 
to report crime because they fear the police, then our entire community 
loses.
  Austin Assistant Police Chief Rudy Landeros has made the Austin 
Police Department a leader in building confidence with immigrants and 
working with them, giving them the respect crime victims deserve, 
because the Austin Police Department and so many others recognize it is 
essential to fulfilling the mission of public safety.
  The Tancredo amendment would destroy such pragmatic local initiatives 
and would endanger all of our families. It must be rejected.
  Our police departments have a difficult mission, and we do not need 
congressional interference at this critical time as they fulfill that 
mission.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. I agree with the position made from the other side of the 
aisle when they make reference to a statement on the Statue of Liberty 
that we are a nation of immigrants and we have an obligation to welcome 
immigrants to this Nation in the past, in the present, and in the 
future. But this amendment does not change that at all.
  I would ask the other side who says that we should not be thwarting 
municipalities, counties, or State governments with their own decisions 
and their own prerogatives on these areas when it is under the 
Constitution the prerogative of Congress to set immigration policy.
  Would the other side of the aisle say that we should allow the 
municipalities to do the reverse? Some municipalities want to set up 
sanctuaries. Should we allow other municipalities to thwart all 
immigration into their town altogether? If we are going to let 
municipalities rule immigration, I guess you would say that they should 
have that authority.
  What rule of law then should we allow municipalities to decide on 
their own where Congress has the obligation? Should we allow the Civil 
Rights Act of the 1960s to be decided by the municipalities and be 
rewarded by the municipalities if they were to thwart those, even 
though Congress has clearly set down what the delineations of the Civil 
Rights Act is? I say no.
  The Constitution clearly says immigration is the authority of 
Congress to set forth. We have set forth in the past, and we shall in 
the future, and the municipalities shall not thwart them.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time, which I 
think is 30 seconds, to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member. I rise to vigorously oppose this amendment. This would 
create a torturous relationship between communities, police, and the 
immigrant community that has often been the key to solving crime 
problems as well as problems that may impact the security of this 
Nation. How would you like to live in a community where your local 
police were charged with the responsibility of raiding your community? 
We need to let Federal laws impact Federal laws. We need not have local 
individuals dealing with Federal laws. The laws are right as they are, 
and we should not deny those who are protecting the community needed 
resources that they need to have.
  Let us oppose this amendment. This is a torturous and destructive 
relationship for our cities and the people that live there.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative Tom Tancredo's 
amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, H.R. 4567. The 
effect of this amendment would be to enact a provision from the CLEAR 
Act (H.R. 2671) and its Senate counterpart (S. 1906). These bills 
compel state and local police officers to become federal immigration 
agents by denying them access to federal funds they are already 
receiving if they refuse these additional duties. Specifically, the 
Tancredo amendment would deny funds to any state or local government 
that limits disclosure of immigration status.
  We count on state and local governments and law enforcement 
authorities as first responders when national security is threatened. 
Since 9/11, they have taken on significant new duties and are facing 
dwindling resources. Further cutting their resources is not going to 
help enhance national security, and, in fact, the Tancredo provision 
could make our communities less safe.
  In immigrant communities, it is particularly difficult for the police 
to establish the relationships that are the foundations for successful 
police work. Many immigrants come from countries in which people are 
afraid of police, who may be corrupt or even violent, and the prospect 
of being reported to the immigration service would be further reason 
for distrusting the police.
  In some cities, criminals have exploited the fear that immigrant 
communities have of all law enforcement officials. For instance in 
Durham, North Carolina, thieves told their victims--in a community of 
migrant workers and new immigrants--that if they called the police they 
would be deported. Local police officers have found that people are 
being robbed multiple times and are not reporting the crimes because of 
such fear instilled by robbers. These immigrants are left vulnerable to 
crimes of all sorts, not just robbery.
  Many communities find it difficult financially to support a police 
force with the personnel and equipment necessary to perform regular 
police work. Having state and local police forces report immigration 
status to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would 
be a misuse of these limited resources.
  ICE also has limited resources. It does not have the resources it 
needs to deport dangerous criminal aliens, prevent persons from 
unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, and enforce 
immigration laws in the interior of the country. Responding to every 
state and local police officer's report of someone who appears to be an 
illegal alien would prevent ICE from properly prioritizing its efforts.
  Local police can and should report immigrants to the immigration 
service in some situations. The decision to contact the immigration 
service, however, should be a matter of police discretion.
  I urge you to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time 
to the sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I have oftentimes of course been on this floor in the debate 
revolving

[[Page 13030]]

around immigration issues. We have tried desperately to keep that 
debate focused on the issue itself and away from innuendo and slur. 
That was the purpose I had in originally asking that the gentleman's 
words be taken down, to avoid that kind of thing, and I appreciate that 
the gentleman, in fact, withdrew his remarks. Remarks like those are 
not only an insult to the people to whom they are made, they are 
demeaning to the maker.
  It is also important to understand that this debate has gone on now 
and has been centered on the other side on whether or not we should, in 
fact, uphold the law. Again, what a peculiar thing to be talking about 
here. It certainly has nothing to do with the Statue of Liberty or 
anything that is written on it.
  The fact is there is a law. It is on the books. It has been there for 
10 years. It says that cities must provide information about 
immigration and they cannot stop the flow of information from the 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That is what it says. 
They are doing it.
  Now, if we do not like the law, then, of course, as I said in my 
opening remarks, introduce a bill to repeal it. But it is there. And to 
stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and suggest that 
people should, in fact, disregard it, that cities and localities should 
ignore it, and that we should even reward them for doing so by 
providing them Federal dollars does seem, to say the least, peculiar. 
But that is the debate here. It has nothing to do with immigrants, with 
people from various countries, with the help that they can provide in 
various services. We are talking about simply not providing some 
disincentive for cities and localities who break the law.
  I ask my colleagues to please think beyond the rhetoric. All of it is 
used to obfuscate the issue. It is just about the law. I ask for the 
adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for 
debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

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

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

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

                              {time}  1315

  And so that was the very concept of the urban area grant program 
which

[[Page 13031]]

was added on top of all of the other grant programs. But threats 
change.
  Anyone who is privy to intelligence knows that yesterday it is 
Columbus, Ohio. It is New York. It is Washington. It is LA. It is 
Chicago. But then it is Albuquerque, and who knows where. And the 
Secretary needs to have wide latitude. We do not need to use this pot 
of money as pork. This needs to go where the needs are. We do not know 
where the needs are until we hear the intelligence of the moment. And 
that is why we leave great discretion in this bill with this pot of 
money as with most of the others with the Secretary and the 
intelligence community to make these grants based on real intelligence. 
Not what I think or what some Member of this body thinks, but what are 
the real facts, what information do we have that we need to respond to. 
And that is why it needs to be a flexible fund.
  Next year there may be 20 cities that are in that list, or it may be 
10, or it may be 60. I do not know. But the funds are there for that 
purpose, to protect the large urban centers of high-density, high-
threat urban areas. To restrict this amount, to restrict the number of 
cities, to say that these are these and no more, we will protect these 
cities and the rest of you can fend on your own, that is not right, is 
it?
  Are we to say to a certain segment of America, you do not matter. You 
do not count. I do not think so. I think this Congress should say these 
monies are to protect Americans wherever the threat is and wherever the 
risk is. And we should not be monkeying around with this type of thing.
  Please do not try to earmark in this bill, and this is an earmark in 
reverse. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think 
that some of the remarks that were made in the last couple of minutes 
seem to indicate that not everyone understands what this amendment 
does. This amendment does not limit the discretion of the Department of 
Homeland Security to say that next year the same 80 cities or 50 cities 
and 30 transit organizations that have grants now have to get grants 
again. It simply says that no more than 80 may get grants, that we 
cannot dilute it further.
  Now, the threat may change, as the distinguished chairman as said, in 
which case, the Department retains the ability, the discretion to 
change where the grants go. What this amendment does, however, is to 
say that the threat is not diluted. The threat is not getting wider and 
wider and wider. We may have more intelligence that this city is a 
bigger threat as opposed to that city this year, and the Department 
would retain the full discretion to shift its funding based on that.
  What this amendments says is, look, the Urban Area Security 
Initiative is the one homeland security program specifically designed 
to assist the cities that need help the most, the ones that are at the 
highest threat for terrorist attack. Yet last night, some of us said we 
should take other funds for homeland security and concentrate them 
more. This body decided otherwise.
  We have certain money guaranteed for every State. But this vote says 
this pot of money goes only to the cities where the threat is highest, 
which makes sense. But if the threat is highest, in how many cities can 
the threat be highest? Seven, 30, 80, 200? It makes the designation of 
the threat being highest meaningless.
  Once you have gotten to distributing the money so widely, then nobody 
gets very much money. Two years ago, in fiscal 2003, New York City 
received $150 million from this pot of money. No one thinks the threat 
has diminished from New York City, and yet this year it received $47 
million, a cut of 69 percent. The national capital region's share, the 
cut was 52 percent.
  What we are saying is from this pot of money which is directed, 
intended for highest-threat areas, keep it for the highest-threat 
areas. It is almost meaningless when you say the 80 highest-threat 
areas. It probably should be the 10 or 12, but certainly no more than 
80.
  Why 80? Because that is what they have diluted it to now. We probably 
should restrict it further. But to say that the pot of money that goes 
to the highest-threat areas should go to the 80 highest-threat areas, 
no more. Whichever the Department decides are the highest-threat areas, 
that discretion remains, is simply a statement of saying this pot of 
money really is for high-threat areas, not generally to be distributed.
  If we are serious again about protecting our people, we should have 
some money that is directed at the highest-threat areas based on 
however we decide the Department decides the highest threat is by 
whatever the intelligence is. That is what this pot of money is 
intended to do. To dilute it past 80 different entities makes it 
meaningless. Therefore, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
amendment and I thank my colleagues for their diligent efforts to bring 
this amendment to the floor.
  I have always said that governing is about setting priorities. With 
more needs than resources, leaders must prioritize when it comes to the 
business of problem solving. This is particularly true in the area of 
public safety, which has only become more critical since the events of 
September 11. The federal government is responsible for protecting all 
Americans from the East Coast to the West Coast and everything in 
between. That is a vital and daunting mission, and the reality that 
security has a price tag means we must make thoughtful priority funding 
decisions based on risk and threat assessments. This amendment 
recognizes that reality and ensures that the most likely terrorist 
targets will be given the priority funding they so desperately need.
  Federal money is not drawn from a bottomless well. There is a fixed 
amount available to go around for many needs including homeland 
security, military/defense, transportation, education and so on. And 
there is a fixed amount available within each of those needs. Homeland 
security money is not unlimited and once again--the needs exceed the 
resources. When the urban area grants were first created, we 
prioritized the cities with the highest threats and most critical 
needs. The first seven grant recipients included New York, the National 
Capital Region, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, and 
Houston. Given the recent news reports of failed attack plans in the 
past, we know these priorities were absolutely correct.
  Since those first grants, the program has increased to 80 grants for 
50 high threat cities and transit systems. Out of the same fixed amount 
of money, we have gone from 7 grants to 80 and we believe this is 
appropriate given the current known threats and risks our nation faces. 
Our concern, however, is that we can not dilute that fixed amount of 
urban area threat money by increasing the number of grants further. 
Perhaps we will decide at a later date we will need to do that, but now 
is simply not the time.
  This amendment will limit the number of grants DHS can make under 
this program to 80, the same number made by the department last year. 
This amendment will not dictate who receives the 80 grants or how much 
money each grant recipient gets. It simply acknowledges that we must 
prioritize how we disperse these limited federal funds.
  As the Congressman for the Maryland 2nd Congressional District, this 
problem is very close to home for me. My district includes the Port of 
Baltimore, BWI Airport, NSA, Ft. Meade, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and 
approximately 90 percent of the chemical facilities in the State of 
Maryland. That is quite a lot of critical infrastructure. I believe 
protecting these national assets is both important for my district and 
for the country as a whole. In addition to the tragedy of human loss in 
the event of another attack, we must also consider the crippling impact 
of environmental, commercial, economic, and infrastructure disasters. 
We must do all we can to protect our people, our nation, and our way of 
life.
  I support this amendment because I believe it is a responsible and 
common sense approach to tackling these enormous problems.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further

[[Page 13032]]

proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

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

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

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

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

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

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

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


                             Point of Order

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

[[Page 13033]]

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

                              {time}  1330

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

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

                  TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

                      Contingent Emergency Reserve

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

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

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

[[Page 13034]]

  It would provide $750 million dollars more to address border 
security. We have 2,000 fewer people patrolling the northern border 
than the PATRIOT Act indicated that we ought to have.
  We provide an additional $86 million for the Container Security 
Initiative so that we do not have to rely on part-time, short-term 
employees to inspect those operations; and it provides a variety of 
other initiatives.
  Now, I know that because the Committee on Rules chose not to allow 
this amendment to be offered that any Member of this House has an 
opportunity to raise a point of order which will prevent the House from 
even voting on this proposition. I would simply make one point in 
urging that Members not exercise that prerogative.
  We are going to be providing next week $25 billion in additional 
funding through the Defense bill to pay for the costs of our war in 
Iraq. That cost will eventually rise for a full year to over $70 
billion. It seems to me, if we are going to spend that much money on an 
emergency basis, then we can provide $3 billion on a contingent 
emergency basis to try to solve some of these home security problems. 
By providing it on a contingency basis, what that means is that the 
President may eliminate any item he chooses. So if the President thinks 
it is unessential, he cannot spend the money and the money will not 
flow.
  I think this is an eminently reasonable amendment. If it is true that 
the number one priority of the House and the number one priority of the 
President is to defend the homeland, if that is true, then we would not 
see this amendment stricken on a point of order.
  The problem we have, and I know some people resent it when I say so, 
but the fact of the matter is that because the majority party has 
chosen to make tax cuts its number one priority, it means that we are 
squeezed on education; it means we are squeezed on health care; and, 
yes, it means that we are squeezed on homeland security. And we are 
prevented from meeting the security needs of the country by funding 
these activities.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment 
in the event that the gentleman from Kentucky decides not to offer the 
point of order.


                             point of order

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

                              {time}  1345

  The Obey amendment would have provided $300 million to address 
bioterrorism preparedness, giving the Department of Homeland Security 
the power to utilize where it was needed on this contingency fund. 
Among other things, it would have provided additional money, about $86 
million, into the Container Security Initiative to provide for 
increased staff to cover those very ports which are still risky ports, 
which the chairman has indicated that we are covering, are largest

[[Page 13035]]

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


            Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Turner of Texas

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

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


                             point of order

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


                             point of order

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


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Markey

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

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Markey:

[[Page 13036]]

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

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

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 
40 minutes and that the time be equally divided between myself and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 20 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, every time we fly we wait in security lines. We empty 
our pockets, we remove our shoes. Sleeping babies are taken out of 
their baby carriers. We have to walk through metal detectors, we have 
to have our baggage inspected. Even grandma with her walker needs to be 
physically inspected at security checkpoints.
  We do not complain much as Americans because we all know this is all 
aimed at improving the security of every single flying passenger in our 
country. But what people do not realize is that right next to our 
baggage, right underneath our now-screened shoes, cargo is placed which 
has not been screened at all.
  For example, if a passenger were carrying onto a plane a package this 
size, it is going to get screened. It is going through the metal 
detector. It is going to be looked at. But if it is shipped as cargo 
and it is 16 ounces or less, it automatically does not get screened at 
all. They think this is not dangerous if it comes as cargo. But if a 
passenger carries it onto that very same plane, it is going to be 
checked. The only difference is if you are carrying it, you are on the 
plane with it. But if someone sends it as cargo, they are not on that 
plane.
  What is dangerous about that? What is dangerous about it is that the 
Pan Am flight over Lockerbie was brought down by a package this size. 
That is what is wrong. We should not have passengers on American planes 
that have this kind of danger that al Qaeda could exploit that could 
wind up with a catastrophe which shocks the world.
  Moreover, cargo which is this size, which is not too much bigger than 
a lot of people's traveling bags for the summer, this does not get 
screened except in very rare instances. It goes right into the belly of 
the plane, the same way that your baggage goes there but without the 
screening. So that is a loophole, unfortunately, that al Qaeda could 
exploit and we know that al Qaeda continues to say and our Bush 
administration security officials confirm that al Qaeda continues to 
put passenger aircraft at the very top of their terrorist target list.
  So the amendment which we are making here today, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself, is the same amendment which we made 
last year to this bill which passed on the House floor 278-146. The 
reason it passed is obvious, it makes no sense to put all of the 
families in our country, especially as vacation time is arriving, on 
planes that have all of these packages that are unscreened even as 
they, the American families, have been put through the toughest 
possible screening possible.
  So our amendment calls for the screening of this cargo, that it 
should not go onto the planes unless it is screened. Why should bags in 
the bay of a passenger plane be screened, that is the bags of the 
passengers, but the other half not be screened even though the people 
who put those packages on are not even flying on the plane? This is 
something that in our opinion makes no sense whatsoever.
  We continue to see data on the number of planes. It turns out that al 
Qaeda was targeting 10 planes for hijacking. We know they are obsessed 
with them and we know that we are obsessed with the planes that are the 
passenger planes. Let us not allow our people in our country, our 
passengers, and yes, yes, we are talking about the American family 
here. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the 
people who are in the galleries today who flew here to Washington. It 
was on their planes, and as they fly out of Washington today, as they 
fly anywhere in America today, it is the baggage on their planes that 
had cargo on it. These people deserve protection.
  That is the simple heart of our argument; that it is just plain wrong 
to put Americans on planes with unscreened cargo, especially since the 
technology is already there. The vast majority of cargo could be 
screened with the existing technology that already screens our bags. It 
is the same size as our bags or smaller. How can they escape being 
screened?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members' support. The gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I will make the argument over the next 30 
minutes or so and we hope that we once again send a strong message that 
we want to have all of this baggage screened.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we agree that 100 percent of all cargo on passenger 
planes should be screened. We are together on the goal. It is just that 
we do not have the capability now. We cannot do it this year. It is 
going to take a little bit longer. The machinery does not exist, 
contrary to what the gentleman from Massachusetts says. That big box is 
too big for the machines that we check our bags through that x-rays 
packages. The machinery does not exist at this time. We have effective 
means in place at the moment to reduce the risk to acceptable levels 
without shutting down air cargo and bankrupting airlines, as this 
amendment would surely do.
  We are aggressively tackling this problem of cargo on passenger 
planes. This bill that we have before you requires at a minimum that 
the TSA double the percentage of air cargo screened, actually screened. 
We appropriate $118.5 million for air cargo security, which is $33.5 
million above what we put in the bill last year for this and as 
requested by the President, including $75 million for developing 
screening technologies, the R&D to develop the machines that would 
accommodate palletized cargo on airlines and the larger packages; $10.5 
million to hire an additional 100 air cargo inspectors; $20 million to 
make further enhancements to the known-shipper program and implement a 
new cargo rule; and $3 million to expand the canine teams deployed to 
inspect air cargo.
  We are getting there, and we are a long way there. We cannot get 
there 100 percent at the moment. However, with this funding, TSA will 
continue an aggressive R&D program to examine technologies, to improve 
the capability to screen the high-risk cargo, including new 
technologies for screening palletized cargo and containerized cargo for 
explosives. A number of vendors have been tentatively selected for 
laboratory evaluation of these kinds of products. TSA is enhancing the 
known-shipper program.
  What is the known-shipper program? It means that you cannot ship 
cargo on a passenger plane unless you have been certified by the 
Federal Government; and they look at you very, very carefully. You have 
got to be a certified known shipper before your cargo can be placed on 
a passenger plane. If you are not a known shipper, you have got to put 
it on a truck or on an all-cargo plane or what have you, but not a 
passenger plane. We do not allow it. So you have got to be a known 
shipper, and you have got to be certified by the Federal Government 
before you can become a known shipper. Known shippers go through a very 
rigorous and thorough process to obtain their status: verification of 
their legitimacy by way of a comprehensive database, random 
inspections, recertifications on a yearly basis.
  This bill includes language requiring at a minimum to double the 
percentage of air cargo that is currently screened.

[[Page 13037]]

That is an incremental approach. We are headed toward 100 percent when 
we can get there, but we simply cannot get there at this minute.
  Screening technologies to inspect air cargo are not ready yet, in 
spite of what anyone says. The latest information that we have is that 
there is no machine at this moment in time able to see explosives. You 
can x-ray a package looking for drugs or contraband, but you cannot see 
explosives with that kind of a machine. That is the distinction the 
gentleman from Massachusetts fails to see. We are looking for 
explosives in passenger planes, not contraband; and the x-ray machines, 
of course, are designed for contraband.
  If this amendment passes and airlines are not allowed to accept air 
cargo, it means that they will go bankrupt. That is it. You shut off 
air cargo; you close down the airlines. I am not going to vote for 
that. The TSA tells me that it would take 9,000 screeners at a cost of 
over $700 million next year to inspect every cargo at the top 135 
airports that handle about 95 percent of all cargo on passenger craft.
  The economy of this country relies on just-in-time delivery by 
airplanes, whether it is fresh produce and meats for grocery stores, 
mechanical parts for manufacturers, medical supplies for hospitals and 
clinics and the like. Cargo transported on passenger aircraft typically 
arrives about 30 minutes before flight time. If you shut off air cargo, 
you are shutting off just-in-time delivery in this very sensitive area 
in this country in manufacturing.
  In this bill, Mr. Chairman, we are going all out to develop the 
technology to screen all cargo. We have in place the known-shipper 
program, canine searches, and other practices; and we will double the 
percentage of personal inspections in this bill. I urge Members to vote 
``no'' on Markey.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the cosponsor of my amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take a lot of time in this first pass 
but just to say, when I hear the presentation of both the gentleman 
from Massachusetts and our very distinguished chairman, it scares the 
heck out of me, because the bottom line is we are being told, and it is 
true, you can get explosives on a passenger airplane; and then we are 
being told we cannot do anything about it because it is impractical, we 
do not have the equipment, and so on. I think the story is somewhere in 
between.
  The bottom line is we have people on passenger airplanes who believe 
that we check the baggage that is in the cargo of those airplanes. I 
think maybe at a minimum we should at least give them a little notice 
when they step on that airplane because it is the truth, that would say 
that when you go on this airplane, all the baggage brought on by 
passengers is screened, but the cargo that is on this airplane is not 
screened for explosives.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is if this 
amendment passes, there will not be any planes for them to get on in 
the first place.
  Mr. SHAYS. I do not believe that. With all due respect, I do not 
believe it. I do not believe that the passenger aircraft are dependent 
on cargo in order to be able to take passengers. I just do not buy it. 
I at least think, though, that the American people deserve the truth, 
whatever the truth is. This is a debate we need to have, and frankly it 
needs to be a debate that is more than 40 minutes. The American people 
are entitled to the truth, whatever that is.
  When we started out talking about the baggage on passenger aircraft, 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) came in with an amendment in 
2002, and he asked me to cosponsor it. He said, We do not check 
baggage. We check some, but we do not check all of it. I said, You have 
got to be kidding me. He said, We do not. And we have no time line.
  So we offered an amendment that said by the end of 2004 we would 
check, and everyone opposed the amendment because they said we could 
not check by the end of 2004. They said, we do not have the equipment, 
we do not have the money, it is too costly and the passenger aircraft 
would just simply not be able to fly. That is what we were told. That 
is what the record said.
  Our amendment passed, and an interesting thing happened. When it came 
back from the conference committee, instead of the end of 2004 that we 
would check for baggage, it said the end of 2003. I went up to one of 
the members and said, How come if we could not do it by the end of 
2004, we could do it by the end of 2003? What I was told was, We did 
not want to put in writing that we could not check until the end of 
2004 and we put the end of 2003 and we did not quite make that 
deadline, we met it sometime a little later in 2004, but we met it 
before the end of 2004. We did it because it mattered and the American 
people would not fly if they did not think the baggage was checked.
  But what we at least need to say, I will say it as often as I can, 23 
percent of what is in the belly of an aircraft is cargo. It for the 
most part is unchecked. Saying that we check because we have a known 
shipper is simply to say that we know who shipped it. It does not mean 
that we check the baggage. It amazes me that somehow we say that that 
is a protective system.
  So for me, it is quite simple. We have got to give them a target. We 
have got to give them a deadline. We have got to be willing to spend 
the money. If six planes are blown out of the sky a week from now or 2 
weeks from now, are all of us supposed to go back into our district and 
say, we could not afford to do it? I cannot do that. I cannot look my 
constituents in the eye and say, we could not afford to do it.
  When we vote, I want every Member to know what we are saying. If you 
vote for the Markey amendment, you are voting to say we have got to 
have this stuff checked. And when it comes back from the conference 
committee, maybe we will come back with a deadline or something that 
you feel is more realistic, but we have got to have something better 
than what we have now. I feel strongly about that. I feel as strongly 
about that as I have ever felt about anything. I have had 50 hearings 
on terrorist issues on my subcommittee, and this of anything that we 
have looked at scares me the most.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This 
amendment is simply unnecessary and unworkable. Some of our colleagues 
have said, and I think wrongly believe, that air cargo is a hole in our 
aviation security system and that extreme measures must be taken 
immediately. I am sensitive to those misconceptions, but believe that 
serious efforts are being made by the Transportation Security 
Administration and the aviation industry; the airline industry are 
taking appropriate steps to address cargo security needs. TSA is 
currently developing new and more comprehensive standards for air cargo 
security which should be finalized soon, and TSA has also issued air 
cargo security directives recently.
  Let me just respond, also, to a couple of things that have been said 
here. First, people are speaking without information. We heard the 
gentleman from Massachusetts say that we are putting our families 
through the utmost possible screening. That is not true. Some of the 
Members should take time to see the classified results of what we are 
putting them through and the holes in the current system. Putting 
explosives on a plane through cargo is a small risk at this point. 
Having a passenger walk through 1950 metal detectors is a great risk 
because those metal detectors do not detect explosives. That is how a 
plane will be taken down if a plane is taken down.

[[Page 13038]]

This amendment actually can do a great deal of damage. In contrast to 
what the gentleman from Connecticut said, in the Congress we put a 
provision in that said 2003 instead of 2004. Those bags still are not 
being screened. We have only done 14 airports inline. That is because 
the Congress might say something, but they are not funding this.
  Look at R&D. I put $50 million in the original TSA bill to fund 
research and development. One of our friends from the State of 
Washington in the other body took $30 million of the $50 million for 
R&D the first year, and that is why we do not have the technology to 
determine what equipment can be used to effectively detect explosives. 
And then again we can stand up here and ask the cow to jump over the 
Moon; but unless you provide the money and the technology and the means 
to do that, it is not going to happen.
  The next year you took the money and you did not fund the money, and 
we had $75 million for R&D. You all waited 5 months, and the people who 
are talking now are the people who delayed the appropriations. So TSA 
took $63 million of $75 million out of their funds for research and 
development and had to use it for personnel. So the problem is here, 
and the problem is Congress making these kinds of edicts that do more 
damage.
  I have summed up the problem. I have identified the problem. The 
problem is here, people talking about things, telling folks that we are 
putting our families at risk. We must address this on a risk basis, and 
we must properly fund R&D.

                              {time}  1415

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

[[Page 13039]]

  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Markey-Shays amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
the Markey amendment. The screening he wants to impose is not possible 
at this time, and technology is not developed to screen some of the 
large pallets. The airlines inspect all packages now, but the current 
screening technologies or pallets involve x-ray technology and not the 
explosives detection. And I have watched airlines load those huge 
pallets into the cargo holds of the planes, and they are much bigger 
than what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) talked about.
  This may be the size of our passenger, but the ones I have watched 
are the size of the Speaker's desk, and we just do not have the ability 
to do that.
  The fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act requires 20 
percent random cargo inspection for the first time. It is now set at 10 
percent; so we are doubling it. But, again, with the research and 
development funding in here, we will be able to get to where we can 
screen those large ones. But we are also doing the ``known shipper.'' 
So much cargo is shipped through known shippers, whether UPS, FedEx, 
DHL, name it. And they are the ones that are doing it, not unlike we 
are beginning to do with passengers where they have access for 
passengers that are known passengers and they go to the head of the 
line or a separate line. We are doing the same thing with cargo. So 
there is reasonableness to what we are doing.
  The bill also provides 100 new cargo inspectors and $50 million in 
cargo security R&D funding in addition to the $55 million provided last 
year. So we are trying to get up to the technology level so we can do 
it. And I just do not want to make sure we throw the baby out with the 
bathwater that we require standards not only of the TSA but also of our 
airlines that they just physically cannot do.
  I also represent a seaport, and in all honesty, we have a hard time 
inspecting 5 percent of containers coming into our ports. I would find 
it amazing if we could even get the 10 percent of our containers that 
come in much less the 20 percent for air cargo.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) 
dedication and I am glad he keeps pushing us because without that maybe 
we would not go further. But I know there is an effort by a lot of 
Members to make sure we do go further every year.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) for a colloquy.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  This is much needed legislation, and I applaud the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentleman from Connecticut for putting it 
forward. It really makes little sense for airport security to screen 
100 percent of the carry-on baggage to the point of removing nail 
clippers and yet not screen all the cargo and baggage that is loaded 
into the belly of a plane. This amendment is really much needed and 
should be passed with strong bipartisan support, should also be 
implemented with strong financial support from the Federal Government.
  My question for the gentleman from Massachusetts is, does he believe 
that down the road we can ensure that cargo loaded onto cargo planes 
will also be screened?
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention, the gentleman from 
Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) intention, that once we close the loophole on 
passenger planes that allow for cargo to go on unscreened, then we will 
move on to the next step, which is the cargo that goes on cargo planes. 
But I think the first job is to make sure that passengers are protected 
and then in the next step, as the gentleman said, we will move on to do 
the same for cargo planes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, that will be safer for the public and the 
workers of the airline industry, and I thank the gentleman for his 
answer.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding time to me.
  I was in my office listening to this debate and came rushing over 
because I heard a couple of things during the debate that disturbed me. 
One was from the gentleman from Connecticut, who, in response to an 
observation by the chairman, said he does not believe that the 
technology does not exist today to do what their amendment seeks to do. 
I believe that and I believe that to be true.
  The other observation was there was reference made to the folks in 
the gallery who came here, and the observation was they probably do not 
know that the cargo that goes into the belly of their passenger plane 
is not screened. I would venture to say that most people that get on 
passenger planes do not even know that they are carrying cargo. Most 
people that get on passenger planes, however, also do not know that it 
is the cost of the cargo, the money that the airlines make relative to 
the cargo shipments, that enable them not only to have cheaper fares 
but also enable them to fly to small areas.
  Just citing one airline that is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, an 
area that is near and dear to my heart, if this amendment were to pass, 
I have been advised 67 jobs would be lost at that one airport by that 
one airline. For that one airline, $325 million in revenue would have 
to be made up in higher and additional fares. And service to smaller 
communities, again the folks in the gallery, if they live in New York 
or Chicago or Los Angeles, they can get home, but if they live in some 
of the smaller hubs, they are not getting home because there will be no 
service to those areas because their fares are subsidized by the 
revenues made up as a result of cargo shipments.
  I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that, again, the chairman has done a 
good job in this bill. He has doubled the amount of belly cargo that is 
being inspected. From where we are today, 100 new inspectors are being 
added, research and development so that pilot programs going on down in 
Houston and other areas can continue to go. This is a well-intended 
amendment. I think we all want to get to 100 percent, but it is a 
wrong-headed amendment because the technology that they seek to impose 
does not exist today.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, just to correct the record also, I would like 
the gentleman and the other Members to know, it was said in the 
beginning of this debate, also, that Pan Am 103 was brought down as a 
result of this situation, explosives in cargo. That is not true. It was 
explosives in luggage.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate trying 
to understand what kind of contribution I can make and what kind of 
things we are listening to, and I feel that three of the most respected 
Members of Congress, I respect for their knowledge on this issue, are 
saying things that, if true, are more shocking than what I thought was 
the case. I mean we have a Member of Congress who basically has said 
that it is foolish to deal with cargo admittedly for the money and the 
technology, which are valid reasons that I understand, but because we 
do not even really check the baggage on the belly of aircraft that we 
say we do but we do not. And I do not know how to process that because 
I tell my constituents that we are doing that, and I am not aware of 
any request on this floor by this chairman or anyone else who has said 
we need this amount of money to fulfill that act. If that is known by 
some in some committee, then let us debate it on the floor.

                              {time}  1430

  Because it is my understanding that we checked the baggage on the 
belly of

[[Page 13040]]

an aircraft for explosives, and if we do not, I think we should say 
where we do not and how long it is going to take and why we are not 
conforming to the law; and then all of us need to deal with that. That 
is fair, but to use that as an argument for then not checking the cargo 
that goes on the belly of an aircraft on a passenger plane to me is 
just like a weird argument.
  Now, if we cannot check big packages, then let us check small 
packages. If we cannot do it this year, then let us have in the law 
that it will be done by this time. Let us not just be so casual about 
it that we just say, well, we went from 5 percent to 10 percent, and we 
need more time to do the technology.
  So what I was thinking as I was sitting here is that what I would 
like to do if this amendment does not pass or if it passes and gets 
lost in conference, I want to come in with an amendment, and it is 
going to be truth to the passenger, and it is going to spell out to the 
passenger in plain, simple language what is the risk when they fly.
  In other words, I think if a plane has not been checked for 
explosives in the belly of an aircraft that is baggage, then tell them; 
and if that has been but we have cargo and 20 percent of this cargo or 
30 percent of what is in the belly of the aircraft is cargo and has not 
been checked, then tell them. I know what I know. I will not fly that 
aircraft, and then I will like to know, and maybe others will, maybe we 
will just have to suck it up and be brave, but I think it is not safe. 
And I am living with the fact that someone in my district found out in 
the middle of the day that maybe her child was on Pan Am 103, and I was 
at her home at 11:30 at night when it was confirmed and this was her 
best friend, her daughter.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me inquire of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), is the gentleman the last speaker?
  Mr. MARKEY. I will be the last remaining speaker, yes, sir.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself the balance 
of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, our gentleman friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) I 
thought needs an answer to the question he raised. What are we doing 
about cargo on passenger planes? What are we doing about it, and where 
are we?
  Well, at the moment we physically inspect a certain percent of all 
cargo on passenger planes. That percentage is a law enforcement-
sensitive number, and we cannot talk about it publicly, but it is a 
percentage that we actually physically inspect.
  The rest cannot be put on a plane unless it has been certified by the 
government to come from somebody we know, a FedEx or UPS or some other 
known shipper, a Toyota, GM, where we have gone to that shipper and put 
them through a rigorous examination so that we know whether or not they 
are reliable and their chain of supply, their security of supply has 
been checked.
  We are developing machinery, however, to be able to take the place of 
all of that. The machinery is just simply not there yet. It is being 
developed, and in the bill we appropriate $118.5 million for air cargo 
security. It is an enormous figure. That is $33.5 million more than we 
spent this year or that the President requested. We topped everybody in 
that respect. And $75 million of that is going to develop new 
technologies.
  One of these days we will have machines that will do for cargo on 
passenger planes what we do for baggage on passenger planes. We simply 
do not have it yet. We are working on it and working on it very 
quickly.
  But in this bill in the meantime we say, okay, we want to double the 
number or the percentage of air cargo that is physically checked, 
double it this year. We provide additional cargo inspectors for that 
purpose. We provide canine teams to help with the inspection of air 
cargo, and we provide $20 million more to make further enhancements to 
the known-shipper program and implement a new cargo rule.
  Now, if this amendment passes, I am sad to say I do not think the 
airlines will make it. If we prohibit all passenger cargo, as the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) has said, we are taking away 
$3.5 billion in income to the airlines that are barely hanging on now. 
27,000 jobs are involved here. We do away with the capability of the 
Nation's economy to have just-in-time delivery, upon which the country, 
in fact the world, runs.
  So I urge Members to be careful if we want to vote for this 
amendment. That is the safe thing to do, of course; but the responsible 
thing is to vote ``no.'' We are doing all we physically can do at the 
moment, and it will not help any if we shut down the airlines.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Markey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that Pan Am Flight 103 over 
Lockerbie did go down, but it went down because a package this size was 
not screened in the baggage. We now mandate that all baggage be 
screened. We closed that loophole, but the reason the Pan Am 103 
families endorse the Markey-Shays amendment and have sent a letter to 
Congress endorsing it is because they know that this same package in 
the cargo is not screened on passenger planes. The Pan Am 103 families 
endorse this amendment.
  Secondly, the technology already exists. The Israelis screen cargo. 
The United Kingdom screens cargo. The Netherlands screens cargo. 
Australia, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, Italy, they already screen the 
cargo which goes onto passenger planes; and there are American 
companies lined up to do the job. American Science and Engineering, 
Incorporated, L3 Security and Detection Systems, Raytheon Cargo Screen, 
they all say they are ready to go to deploy the technology today. It is 
not a question of technology. It is a question of money. The same 
argument was made right after September 11: we do not have enough money 
to screen the bags of every passenger going on planes.
  Well, we do not have enough money not to do it, because the next 
plane that goes down is going to cripple the American economy. That is 
the price of leaving a loophole that could lead to an explosion on a 
plane. That is the price our country is going to pay, and it is going 
to look like one cent on a hundred dollars if it happens.
  We cannot afford to allow this kind of loophole to exist. This known-
shipper program, it is not even certified by the Federal Government. 
The Federal Government lets the airlines decide who these shippers are, 
who put these packages on without even screening. It is not even a 
Federal Government program; it is an airline program. That is no 
security for the American flying public.
  These people who fly into Washington as tourists, people going on 
vacations, they should not have to be putting their families on planes 
with cargo this size or this size, that has not been screened, even as 
they have been forced to take their nail clippers out and have them 
confiscated. It is wrong.
  The Markey-Shays amendment should pass. If you want to see security 
on the airlines of our country, if you want to avoid another airline 
disaster in our country that will cause an economic catastrophe, vote 
``aye'' on the Markey-Shays amendment.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey/Shays/
Conyers/Turner amendment. More importantly, I rise in support of 
increased security for air travelers across the country. Screening air 
cargo on passenger planes is a critical element in protecting the 
public, and there is no excuse for allowing this glaring loophole to 
persist.
  With the summer travel season upon us and air travel nearing pre-9/11 
levels, this issue gains urgency by the day. Every day, and at every 
airport, unscreened cargo is loaded on to a passenger planes, placing 
the traveling public, airline employees and airport workers at risk.
  We have spent billions of dollars and asked Americans to endure long 
waits and countless inconveniences in order to ensure safe air travel. 
The failure to inspect cargo on passenger planes flies in the face of 
these security investments and threatens to make all our efforts for 
naught.
  But it doesn't have to be this way. The technology exists to close 
this security gap, but

[[Page 13041]]

the will apparently does not . . . and I can't for the life of me 
understand why. It is long past time to address this issue and stop 
placing millions of travelers at risk.
  I urge my colleagues to give the Markey/Shays/Conyers/Turner 
amendment the resounding victory it deserves, and give the American 
people the security we have promised.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment. Let me be clear. I do not believe any law maker is against 
the need to make our homeland safe. However, I have always been and 
will continue to be a strong advocate for improving the security of our 
homeland especially at our nation's airports, but I do not believe in 
creating additional unfunded federal mandates.
  I represent the Baltimore-Washington International Airport and I am 
very familiar with these issues. I believe the security of aviation is 
a critical component in protecting our homeland and air cargo is a 
significant concern. I fully support the need to protect our airports, 
the people who fly in and out of them, the people who work in the 
airline industry and the goods and services that are transported by 
planes. Aviation security is key to our way of life, our business and 
leisure travelers, and our nation's commerce. On that point, I think we 
can all agree.
  We can also agree that air cargo security deserves an equal amount of 
attention and problem solving to make it a safe way of doing business. 
We need to ensure that air cargo is safe so business can proceed. The 
air cargo industry and airports have worked hard since September 11, 
2001 to recognize potential risks and threats, and to make air cargo 
more secure. Have we done enough? Probably not. Do we still need to do 
more? Absolutely. That is not the debate before us today.
  The next question becomes what is the best solution. On this, I do 
not believe this amendment is the right way to improve air cargo. I 
commend my colleagues for their hard work to correct risks associated 
with air cargo, but I am concerned about the creation of further 
unfunded federal mandates on an industry so vital to the American 
economy. There are still so many questions about the feasibility and 
cost of available technology. Each airport has different challenges and 
there is no one-size-fits-all solution to any homeland security issue, 
including air cargo.
  This amendment would effectively double the amount of air cargo to be 
screened and inspected without providing any sort of financial relief 
for equipment, technology, infrastructure or personnel to do so. The 
aviation industry did not create the problems we face in homeland 
security and I do not believe they should shoulder the entire burden of 
correcting it through further unfunded mandates. Throughout my entire 
political career I have stressed the need for partnerships to solve 
problems and the federal government must partner with industry to 
address the needs of homeland security. The Constitution tasks the 
federal government with protecting Americans and we cannot fulfill that 
responsibility by simply creating new mandates for the aviation 
industry to comply with. We need to work together in commitment and 
resources.
  The 2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill does 
recognize and address the challenge of air cargo security risks. It 
substantially increases research and development funding for new 
technology that will ultimately make comprehensive cargo screening 
feasible. It is an important and fiscally responsible step in the right 
direction to tackle an enormously complex issue. All Americans want the 
safest environment we can create, but we must do it in a logical way 
that does not unduly burden the aviation industry or impede national 
commerce.
  I believe this amendment is placing the cart before the horse and we 
should let the R&D money provided for in this bill do its work. I will 
continually fight to keep the Maryland 2nd Congressional District and 
this nation more secure. I believe we need to do more with airport 
security but I do not believe this solution is the right one.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will be postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $895,476,000.

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


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sherman

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

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

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan reserves a 
point of order against the amendment.
  The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Customs and 
APHIS from expending any funds to process any import from the Islamic 
Republic of Iran into the United States. The amendment would 
effectively reverse a decision made in the year 2000 by a Clinton 
administration order, which partially lifted what was

[[Page 13042]]

then our total embargo on Iranian imports.
  This has created a circumstance where we import from the Islamic 
Republic of Iran roughly $150 million of goods. We do not import any 
oil or other petroleum or energy products from Iran. That is prohibited 
by existing law. Instead, we import caviar and carpets. So the question 
before us now is whether we wish to put economic and symbolic pressure 
on the government in Tehran.
  Well, let us examine that government's behavior. It is developing 
nuclear weapons. It is only a couple of years away, perhaps, from 
having an atomic bomb. Its cooperation with the IAEA was found 
inadequate by the IAEA Board. Even its so-called reformist leaders have 
decided to support this nuclear program.
  Why? Because they know that they can move forward with their nuclear 
weapons program without paying any economic cost, and they are able to 
go in a complex political situation to the people of Iran and say, 
Don't worry that we are developing nuclear weapons. We will suffer no 
economic cost.

                              {time}  1445

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


                             Point of Order

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


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

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

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

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

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

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, small businesses need opportunities. 
Repeatedly, small businesses have demonstrated that they can provide 
the government a superior product at an affordable cost to taxpayers.
  Unfortunately, small businesses are seeing their opportunities 
dwindle as agencies place expediency over job creation in our local 
communities and what is best for the American taxpayers. The cost of 
this is the creation of mega contracts that are so big that only big 
businesses in corporate America can compete. What they are telling 
American small businesses is that the $285 billion Federal marketplace 
is not open to them.
  When President Bush took office, he promised to change this and to 
open the Federal marketplace to small businesses. Even 2 years ago, 
during Small Business Week, he issued a small business agenda and made 
contract bundling his top priority. Since taking office, not only has 
he done nothing to change this, but this administration has failed to 
meet any of the small business goals set up by Congress. This is 
outrageous.
  Today's legislation is a perfect example of that. This Department was 
created by the President and was supposedly to do things in a new way. 
What we are seeing here is business as usual. The most recent example 
is this regional security contract that currently is being done by 
small business securities firms across the country. Homeland Security 
is currently in the process of bundling this contract so large that 
probably three firms, one of

[[Page 13043]]

them not even an American firm; so now, we are going to turn security 
over to foreign companies, and none of the small businesses will be 
able to provide the service. This will result in the loss of thousands 
of jobs in communities across the country at a time when job creation 
is still struggling.
  My amendment will stop the Homeland Security from bundling contracts 
that will steal opportunities from small businesses and ensure that 
small businesses will continue to provide the services that they have 
done so well.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in 
opposition.
  This is the first time we have seen this amendment. It is brand-new 
to me. We have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that I was just contacted 
by one of the small business firms that has provided these services who 
is going to go out of business, and he contacted me yesterday.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, I understand the gentlewoman, and I 
appreciate the predicament that she is in on this.
  It also puts us in a predicament because I do not know the 
ramifications of the amendment. It could have some very significant 
national unintended consequences that I have not had time to think 
about. So I wish we could work with the gentlewoman. Rather than bring 
this to a vote, perhaps if the gentlewoman would reconsider.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I 
am not prepared to do that at this point, because in the past, like in 
Homeland Security, I introduced an amendment where 23 percent of any 
monies spent by DOD in the reconstruction of Iraq will go to small 
businesses. During conference it was taken out. So time and time again, 
when we have an opportunity to help small businesses through the 
legislative process, they are being shut out.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, then 
I have no choice but to oppose the amendment. I want to help the 
gentlewoman, but if this is the attitude, then we will just have a 
debate here and let the vote take place, and it will be one way or the 
other and over with.
  So I would hope that the gentlewoman would reconsider that.
  But nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the ramifications of 
this amendment. It could be devastating around the Nation for all I 
know, so I have to at the moment oppose it and oppose it vigorously.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is just simply outrageous that if 
these securities have been performing these types of services by small 
businesses, that Homeland Security, despite the goals that have been 
set up by Congress, and despite the fact that the President made a 
commitment to small businesses of making contract bundling his top 
priority, that now Homeland Security is going to bundle this contract, 
putting so many small businesses out of business.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the 
gentlewoman would give me time to work with her on this, I will be 
happy to do it, but this is the first I have known about it. I do not 
know the ramifications of the amendment the gentlewoman filed 
nationally. It could very well be very expensive nationally; it could 
cost the government a lot of money. It could set a bad precedent to 
predetermine the most efficient way of contracting. How does it help? 
How does it hurt? I do not know. So I have to oppose it until we know 
more about it.
  So I would hope the Members would reject the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York. (Ms. Velazquez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2005''.

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

                              {time}  1500

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


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: amendment by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); the amendment by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro); amendment No. 1 by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard); the amendment by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo); amendment No. 9 by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney); the amendment by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo);

[[Page 13044]]

amendment No. 10 by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey); the 
amendment by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic voting 
after the first vote in this series.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 267]

                               AYES--137

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

                               NOES--269

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1527

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


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 268]

                               AYES--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud

[[Page 13045]]


     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--221

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

                             NOT VOTING--30

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1534

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


              Amendment No. 1 Offered By Ms. Roybal-Allard

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 269]

                               AYES--242

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

                               NOES--163

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood

[[Page 13046]]


     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--28

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1542

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 259, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 270]

                               AYES--148

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

                               NOES--259

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

                             NOT VOTING--26

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1550

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


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

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

[[Page 13047]]




                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113, 
noes 292, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 271]

                               AYES--113

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

                               NOES--292

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

                             NOT VOTING--28

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1558

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 205, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 272]

                               AYES--199

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

                               NOES--205

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bonner

[[Page 13048]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--29

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1605

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


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Markey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 211, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 273]

                               AYES--191

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

                               NOES--211

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

                             NOT VOTING--31

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1612

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

[[Page 13049]]




                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 205, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 274]

                               AYES--201

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

                               NOES--205

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

                             NOT VOTING--27

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1619

  Mr. TANNER and Mr. KLECZKA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4567, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. 
Specifically, Congress continues to provide significant homeland 
security dollars for State and local governments, which is essential in 
our ongoing global war on terror. Since September 11, 2001, Congress 
has provided $26.7 billion to first responders, thus far including 
training and equipment. While this is undeniably the greatest support 
our Nation's police, firefighters and other responders have seen, we 
continue to face challenges in distributing this funding in a fair and 
appropriate manner.
  Chairman Hal Rogers has accomplished a great deal by taking the helm 
of this new appropriations subcommittee and all its responsibilities, 
with the most recent success of streamlining the process of applying 
and receiving Federal funds for local governments with a ``one-stop 
shop,'' eliminating choke points and bureaucracy.
  But we still have a fundamental challenge to tackle--and that is the 
disparity between States in receiving the first responder block grant. 
The bulk of first responder funds is distributed on a per capita basis, 
leaving the largest, most vulnerable States with the least amount of 
Federal resources. While we have achieved some balance with the 
concentration of the high-threat urban area grants, I believe we can 
and will continue to work toward even greater equity within the 
formula.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Rogers and all of my 
colleagues from urban and rural areas to ensure that as Congress 
continues to provide significant resources to our responder 
communities, that we do it in an effective and efficient manner.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in respectful 
opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts, my colleague on the House Select Committee on Homeland 
Security regarding the most serious issue of cargo security.
  I agree with my colleague that we need to address the gaps that exist 
in the airline cargo screening process. However, at this juncture, 
because the complete screening of all cargo is an unfeasible 
undertaking, it is preferable that we continue the screening process as 
it is and instead set a deadline for airline carriers to devise an 
efficient and cost-effective plan and to procure adequate equipment to 
enhance the current process.
  It is speculative at best that, under the text of our colleague's 
amendment, our Transportation Security Administration will actually be 
able to perform this tremendous undertaking. To impose a requirement to 
screen every item of air cargo carried on passenger airlines would 
dramatically increase costs for air cargo and eliminate cargo services 
to some communities and impose additional time and burden upon our 
economy and the already flailing industry.

[[Page 13050]]

  Long term, this amendment would put some 655 jobs at risk at Bush 
Intercontinental Airport (IAH). These people will have nothing to do if 
100 percent cargo screening is required and will be terminated. Service 
to small cities may be curtailed or even eliminated which would result 
in other job loss. It would be far more difficult to get goods out of 
Houston as there is not enough belly space in FedEx and UPS or on rail 
or by truck to cover it all. FedEx and UPS have been lobbying with us 
on this issue as they know they do not have enough space. The DHS 
Appropriations Subcommittee will require 20 percent random inspection 
of cargo (in the bill). H.R. 4567 provides for 100 new cargo inspectors 
and increased Research and Development funding.
  At IAH Airport in Houston, there has already been implemented a 
costly demonstration project that involves pulse neutron analysis, so 
an additional burden would not be welcome at this time.
  On May 6th of this year, I joined the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts, along with the Ranking Member of our committee from 
Texas, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Israel from New York, Member of the House 
Armed Services Committee, in introducing legislation on behalf of House 
Democrats to improve aviation security throughout the United States--
the Safe PLANES Act.
  The bill covers areas such as strengthening the screener workforce at 
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), installing explosive 
detection equipment and other technologies across the Nation where 
needed, and the implementation of a plan to fully inspect all cargo on 
passenger aircraft, among others. It addresses the serious gaps that we 
recognize in our current aviation security plan that is currently being 
administered by TSA. The nature of the vulnerabilities require 
immediate changes and the implementation of improved plans to fully 
screen all cargo, even-handedly install equipment and technology in all 
airports, and increase the number of trained personnel where needed.
  I contributed to the crafting of this legislation by drafting 
paragraph (a)(5) of section 6 entitled ``Aviation Security 
Technologies'' and paragraph (b) of section 7 entitled ``Inspection of 
Cargo Carried Aboard Passenger Aircraft.'' Paragraph (a)(5) of the 
first section calls for, in connection with a report requirement made 
to accompany the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) fiscal year 
2006 budget request, the gathering of information that reveals the 
Federal and airport security personnel's capability of operating 
screening equipment and technology--speaking to the question of 
equipment interoperability and staff competency to operate equipment. 
Paragraph (b) of the second section requires the Secretary of DHS to 
transmit to Congress a summary of the system implemented to screen and 
inspect air cargo in the same manner and degree as that employed to 
screen and inspect passenger baggage pursuant to section 404 of this 
provision. The language that I proposed seeks to uncover weaknesses in 
our airport security personnel as well as to give Congress a blue print 
with which it can better exercise its oversight duties with respect to 
the screening and inspection of air cargo.
  The Safe PLANES Act, if passed, will give us an added layer of 
security for air cargo. We should work for its passage and take 
legislative initiatives one step at a time in order to ensure that we 
work effectively and without hurting the backbone of our economy--the 
workers.
  For the above reasons, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully oppose this 
amendment and ask that my colleagues work to improve and pass the Safe 
PLANES Act.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the bill before us today, 
H.R. 4567, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 
2005. I particularly want to discuss how certain provisions in this 
legislation would affect my district of El Paso, Texas, and the entire 
southwest border region.
  While the bill provides an overall funding increase of about 9 
percent over last year for all homeland security activities, there are 
certain areas in the bill where we must do better. For example, H.R. 
4567 provides only a little more funding for customs and border 
protection activities than is necessary to keep pace with inflation, 
and actually provides less funding than last year for citizenship and 
immigration services.
  A Democratic proposal to add $3 billion to the bill for urgently 
needed improvements to our homeland security was blocked in the 
Appropriations Committee. This contingency fund would have given us 
additional resources to strengthen our border security, provide our 
first responders additional resources, and better protect against the 
threat of bioterrorist attacks.
  I am very pleased, however, that the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Texas, Mr. Turner, was accepted. The amendment would 
require an independent study to assess staffing needs at the border, 
giving us reliable data to help determine the required level and 
allocation of personnel at the border. It is a great step forward in 
ensuring that our border security needs are adequately addressed and 
funded.
  Mr. Chairman, as we move forward with this legislation, it is my hope 
that we will increase funding for critical homeland security programs, 
to ensure that even in a time of fiscal constraints we are doing 
absolutely everything possible to keep our borders, and all of America, 
safe and secure.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manzullo 
amendment to apply the Berry amendment to homeland security 
procurement. This is a common-sense and proven step to create American 
jobs and reward American companies.
  For 30 years, the Berry amendment has protected critical defense-
related industries in this country. It has helped to preserve 
manufacturing, textile and other American jobs, allowed domestic 
companies to flourish, and provided our Armed Forces with high-quality 
products that keep our military prepared and equipped to be the best in 
the world.
  Having served America so well for defense procurement, it makes 
perfect sense that the Berry amendment should now be extended to 
homeland security. U.S. companies have been instrumental in ongoing 
efforts to protect airports, equip first responders, deploy cutting-
edge technology to hospitals, and so much more. Rewarding their 
patriotism and hard work with procurement protections is the right 
thing to do.
  I also want to note that the Manzullo amendment would allow waivers 
of the Berry amendment when needed items cannot be procured 
domestically and would not place any of our current or future homeland 
security operations at risk. What it would do is say to American 
companies and American workers that we appreciate their efforts and 
welcome their partnership as we work to protect our citizens.
  The Berry amendment is a tested means of supporting domestic 
businesses while they support us. I hope my colleagues will support 
Congressman Manzullo's amendment and extend this important provision to 
homeland security procurement as well.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, although I have reservations about some of 
the priorities reflected in this Homeland Security funding bill, it is 
important legislation and I intend to support it. But, Mr. Chairman, I 
understand that the appropriations process is about priorities. That 
being the case, I'd like to talk about some of the priorities that, in 
my view, have been overlooked in this legislation.
  Like every parent, the first thought that raced through my mind on 9/
11 was of my children. Where were they? Were they safe? How could I 
reach them, or they me? Given the likelihood that an emergency could 
occur while our kids are at school and parents are at work, teaching 
age-appropriate skills about how to respond is critical. Growing up 
during the Cold War, I remember the drills, and sharing what I learned 
with my parents and younger brother.
  Such training is needed today. And there is a program in California, 
Mr. Chairman, known as FLASH, which is specifically designed as a 
public school curriculum to teach students, parents and teachers how to 
prepare and respond in the event of a terrorist attack or natural 
disaster.
  I am very disappointed that the bill does not include modest funding 
for implementation of a Federal version of FLASH. Surely, a program of 
such obvious importance should be able to find a home in the Federal 
Government. I hope that before the end of this Congress, my colleagues 
will adjust their priorities and fund a Federal pilot-program that 
mirrors California's FLASH program, along the lines of H.R.----.
  Another priority of America's hometowns is providing our local 
police, fire and emergency personnel with the tools they need to 
protect us. One of the most important of those tools is interoperable 
communications--ensuring the ability of our first responders to 
communicate with one another. Interoperability is more than a public 
safety issue. It's a national security issue, and to our first 
responders it can be an issue of life or death. Thousands of lives are 
potentially at stake. We have all heard the tragic stories of 
firefighters who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 because NYPD 
helicopters circling overhead could not radio them that the towers were 
glowing and beginning to collapse.
  This bill falls short of meeting America's interoperability needs, 
providing just $21 million for programs that help facilitate 
communications for first responders. I urge my colleagues to at least 
double funding for first responders in conference, and I hope we will

[[Page 13051]]

soon be bold enough to overcome opposition to make needed emergency 
spectrum available by 2006, the date it was promised.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative to complete the national 
threat and vulnerability assessment, required by law and central to 
creating one integrated strategy for homeland defense. With a real 
understanding of our security needs and vulnerabilities, based upon a 
comprehensive assessment, funds would naturally flow to those regions 
and priorities that provide maximum security to the American people. 
This bill is necessary, but it could be better. In light of the serious 
threats we face, we must do better.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I commend the members and 
staff of the Appropriations Committee for their work on the FY 05 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Securing the 
resources we need for this country's long term war on terrorism is a 
formidable task; one we must accomplish in a bipartisan manner. I 
support the appropriations bill before us today, but I remain concerned 
with the inadequate levels of funding for first responders, 
interoperability and port security. The American people depend on 
homeland security, and we must find the means to provide the resources 
needed to protect our communities.
  As the Ranking Member of the Intelligence and Counterterrorism 
Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I support 
the funding needed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to 
provide accurate and timely intelligence assessments. Unfortunately, 
this bill reduces funding for first responder programs at DHS from the 
current $4.4 billion funding level to $4.1 billion, a cut of $327 
million below the 2004 enacted level.
  First responders must have the resources they need to do their jobs. 
My firefighters, police and emergency workers tell me that they have 
difficulty communicating with each other because of incompatible 
equipment. This problem affects first responders throughout the country 
and it is unacceptable. Adequate funds must be available to adequately 
equip our Nation's first responders.
  Missouri has the seventh largest highway system in the Nation and the 
second and third largest railroad terminals in the Nation. Port and 
transportation security is crucial to our Nation's economy. Six million 
cargo containers enter U.S. ports every year, but only about 5 percent 
of these containers are ever screened. This appropriations bill fails 
to adequately fund port security and freezes funding for port security 
grants at the 2004 level of $124 million.
  Mr. Obey, Ranking Member on the Appropriations Committee, attempted 
to counter these shortfalls with an amendment to H.R. 4567. Mr. Obey's 
amendment would have created a $3 billion contingent emergency fund for 
homeland security. Even though this emergency funding would be 
contingent upon the President requesting it, the amendment was rejected 
by Republicans on the House Rules Committee. The rejection of Mr. 
Obey's amendment prevents a more secure America, and seriously weakens 
the legislation.
  Mr. Turner, my distinguished colleague and Ranking Member on the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security, has pointed out that our annual 
spending on homeland security amounts to less than one half of one 
percent of our Nations Gross National Produce (GNP). He also points out 
that since 9/11, we increased spending on the agencies which make up 
the Department of Homeland Security by approximately $15 billion. At 
the same time, our defense budget has increased by approximately $100 
billion. I strongly agree with Mr. Turner that as we devote resources 
to winning the war on terror abroad, we must also invest in our 
homeland security needs here at home.
  I urge my colleagues who will reconcile the House Appropriations Act 
in joint conference with the Senate to agree to adequate funds for our 
emergency responders nationwide.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask the subcommittee leadership a 
question related to the public health provisions in the bill.
  We are all aware of the blood shortages that call our attention to 
the fact that the United States does not have sufficient blood supplies 
to meet the country's normal daily blood needs. What is more alarming, 
however, is that in this new age of terrorism the United States does 
not have sufficient blood reserves to meet the critical demand that 
would occur in the event of an emergency or terrorist attack. As the 
Homeland Security Appropriations legislation moves forward to a House-
Senate conference, it is important that we recognize the need to 
address this pressing national security issue as well. I would ask that 
the Committee leadership include language in the final measure that 
would create a National Blood Reserve, based on the recent 
recommendations of the Interorganizational Task Force on Domestic 
Disasters and Acts of Terrorism. The recommendations would strengthen 
our Nation's blood supply and ensure the health and welfare of our 
citizens.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Goodlatte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4567) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 675, he reported the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400, 
nays 5, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 275]

                               YEAS--400

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha

[[Page 13052]]


     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--5

     Berry
     Capuano
     Flake
     Paul
     Sanchez, Linda T.

                             NOT VOTING--29

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

                              {time}  1638

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

                          ____________________