Amendment Text: H.Amdt.186 — 108th Congress (2003-2004)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (06/24/2003)

This Amendment appears on page H5783 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H5744-H5795]
        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 293 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2555.

                              {time}  1334


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2555) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day. Only 4 months after the 
Department of Homeland Security was stood up, we now consider in the 
Congress the very first ever Homeland Security appropriations bill on 
the House floor.
  The creation of the Department is by far the largest reorganization 
of the Federal Government in its history. Mr. Chairman, 180,000 
employees, 22 security-related agencies merged into a single unit, 
agencies as diverse as the new Transportation Security Administration, 
FEMA, the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and 
some 18 other agencies throughout the government.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about 
the breadth of the problem that we face.
  On our borders, we have to protect ourselves: 2,000 miles of border 
with Mexico; 5,500 miles of border with Canada. There are 9,500 miles 
of shoreline. We have 157 ports of entry, 361 seaports. There are 440 
million visitors who arrive in our country by land, sea, and air each 
year. There are 118 million vehicles that come here, 11 million of them 
trucks; 2.5 million railcars; and 17 million cargo containers that 
cross through our ports every year.
  In transportation, there are some 768,000 commercial flights that 
enter the U.S. at 429 commercial airports, carrying some 635 million 
passengers a year. We have 18,000 general aviation airports. We have 
143,000 miles of freight railways, 3.9 million miles of highways, and 
550 major public transportation systems throughout our country. There 
are 590,000 bridges. There are 526,000 interstate trucking companies, 
43,000 of them certified to carry hazardous materials.
  We have 150 oil refineries, 86,000 miles of crude oil pipelines, 
278,000 miles of natural gas pipelines. There are 66,000 chemical and 
hazardous materials plants. There are 1,800 Federal reservoirs. There 
are 9,300 power plants, including 104 nuclear, in our country.
  And then there are all sorts of high-target, high-risk symbols of our 
Nation. We are speaking from one even as I talk now: the Capitol. We 
have the White House, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, 
the Statue of Liberty, the St. Louis Arch, the Golden Gate Bridge, and 
on and on and on, including some 463 skyscrapers in our land.
  I mention those facts, Mr. Chairman, to highlight the enormous 
challenge that we face as we begin to tackle our homeland security 
needs. Protecting American citizens from harm is the first and foremost 
duty of the Federal Government, and this awesome task largely falls 
upon the shoulders of the Department of Homeland Security.
  This bill, Mr. Chairman, provides $29.4 billion for the Department. 
That is an increase of just over $1 billion above what we were asked by 
the President, and $535 million more than the current-year levels.
  The bill recognizes that while the Department of Homeland Security 
has the lead in developing our national Homeland Security strategy, 
implementation of that strategy requires the active participation of 
State and local governments and the private sector.
  When it comes down to it, homeland security, Mr. Chairman, is 
essentially hometown security; and it requires the active engagement of 
all Americans and all branches of government.
  The bill before us today recognizes the role each stakeholder must 
play in this big mission. It funds not only the Department's first full 
year of operations, but also anticipated efforts of State and local 
governments and the private sector.
  As we debate this bill today, I urge my colleagues to remember 
everything that has been accomplished since September 11. While some 
might suggest that we are not doing enough, I would say we are making 
tremendous progress in our war on terror. The glass is not half empty; 
it is half full.
  Since September 11, we have provided $75.8 billion for homeland 
security funding across the entire government. For these 22 agencies 
that now make up the new Department of Homeland Security, we have 
provided $43.9 billion through fiscal year 2003; and in this bill, we 
add an additional $29.4 billion, bringing the total provided to the 
Department to $73.3 billion for fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
  Protecting the Nation's borders is our first line of defense against 
terrorism. We include in the bill a total of $9 billion for border 
protection and related activities. That is an increase of $400 million 
over the current enacted levels, including $2 billion for the U.S.

[[Page H5745]]

Coast Guard homeland security activities. This bill makes innovative 
technology and capital investments a priority, recognizing that our 
borders will only be secure when we use a combination of people and 
technology.
  Since September 11, 5,400 inspectors, special agents, and Border 
Patrol agents have been added to our borders, increasing coverage at 
ports by 25 percent. An additional 4,100 Coast Guard personnel have 
been hired to protect our ports and our waterways, increasing the 
intensity and number of inspections at ports of entry. We will continue 
to inspect 100 percent of all high-threat cargo and high-threat vessels 
coming into our waters.
  We include $388 million for port security grants. The $100 million 
included in this bill is another down payment to secure critical port 
facilities, bringing the total funding since 9-11 to $488 million.
  Since September 11, we have provided $263 million for technology, 
including radiation detectors for our ports and nonintrusive inspection 
technologies for cargo screening. These technologies have been deployed 
at our busiest land and sea ports, including Miami, Los Angeles, and 
Newark; and in this bill we add another $129 million for those 
technologies, bringing the total since 9-11 to $392 million.
  We provide $60 million for the Customs Container Security Initiative, 
fully funding that effort since its inception. We include $62 million 
for that program, bringing the total funding to $122 million to support 
the participation of nearly all of the 20 foreign megaports from which 
we receive practically all of our cargo. This initiative targets high-
threat cargo before it comes into our ports.
  We also place in the bill a high priority on funding our State and 
local first responders. I believe it is essential that our State and 
local governments have the resources to address the needs of our 
hometowns. We include $4.4 billion for our first responders, law 
enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency response personnel. 
And since September 11, Mr. Chairman, I want all of my colleagues to 
hear this: since September 11, the Congress has appropriated $20.8 
billion in assistance to our State and local governments for terrorism 
prevention and preparedness.

                              {time}  1345

  That, Mr. Chairman, is an increase of 1,000 percent before 9/11. 
Despite that significant investment, there are concerns about how and 
when this money gets to both State and local organizations. I agree in 
some instances it is taking too long for those funds to get there and 
the complex process is complicated and cumbersome. We tried to address 
that in this bill. I am optimistic that this issue will be addressed as 
part of the final bill that is sent to the President for his signature.
  Enhancing transportation security is a continuing concern. Since 9/11 
we have provided a total of $10.38 billion for passenger safety through 
the Transportation Security Administration. Passenger screening, 
baggage screening, cargo screening, an additional $5.172 billion is 
included in this bill. Since September 11, $1.5 billion has been spent 
on explosive and trace detection systems, including the development, 
procurement and installation in our airports. We include in this bill 
an additional $335 million for the purchase and installation of these 
systems, as well as $50 million for air cargo safety and $40 million 
for research on next generation technologies at our airports.
  Science and technology are critical to improving security, increasing 
efficiency and reducing costs. We include $900 million for science and 
technology, including $60 million, Mr. Chairman, to design develop and 
test any missile devices for our commercial aircraft. Other funds are 
targeted at research, development and rapid deployment of innovative 
technologies that our universities and other public and private 
organizations are already developing.
  Lastly, the bill includes $5.6 billion over 10 years to encourage 
commercial development and production of medical countermeasures 
against bioterrorism, the so-called BioShield program. Funding in 
fiscal year 2004 is limited to $890 million. These funds will remove 
the barriers to develop next generation treatment for potential 
bioterror agents and will encourage the private sector to conduct the 
necessary research to counter bioterror threats.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is the first Department of 
Homeland Security appropriations bill ever considered by these bodies. 
I believe it presents a well-balanced approach to tackling the job 
ahead. It invests in people. We invest in technology. We invest in 
partnerships. It funds efforts to assess our vulnerabilities and 
capitalize on our assets.
  A lot of people would want us to spend tons and tons of more money, 
and believe me, if we thought it was useful to do so we would have no 
compunction against doing that. But there has got to be somewhere where 
we sensibly allocate our funds to our vulnerabilities and spend those 
dollars, but we should not spend money just for throwing it away.
  I believe this bill is responsible, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this historic measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) on the first homeland security bill and congratulate 
him on a job well done and also add my thanks to the staff, both 
minority and majority, for their hard work in putting this bill 
together. We really do appreciate their efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2004 Homeland 
Security appropriations bill. But I must say that in many ways I think 
it is premature for this bill to be the first appropriations measure 
brought to the floor. The Department is in serious disarray, and the 
committee received very little support from the Department in putting 
together this bill and report. In fact, many of the agencies 
transferred to the Department were prevented by the Department from 
providing responsive information to the subcommittee.
  Hearings could not even be arranged for four of the largest and most 
important of the Department's 11 major agencies. Those four agencies 
constitutes $9 billion, or 31 percent, of the Department's total 
budget. And I must say that that is an additional reason for thanking 
the staff, both minority and majority of this committee, for putting a 
bill together with the lack of information coming from the Department.
  In some ways the current state of the Department of Homeland Security 
reminds me of the situation we faced 1 year ago and still face today 
with TSA. The management failures of TSA are well known, and I fear 
that the Department of Homeland Security is going down the same path. 
The Department so far has failed to develop a useful road map of its 
security goals for the Nation. If anyone at the Department has a 
strategy for basic objectives, such as securing the northern border, 
tracking all vessels entering American waters, or ensuring that airline 
cargo is effectively screened, no one has been willing to share that 
information with us. I find that disturbing.
  If the Department will not define its goals, it is up to the Congress 
to do them. This bill provides $29.4 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for the Department of Homeland Security. This is only $536 
million, or 1.8 percent, above fiscal 2003 funding. The gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has managed to fill some of the most glaring 
funding gaps contained in President Bush's 2004 budget, specifically 
funding for first responder programs contained in this bill. However, 
the tightness in the budget resolution restricts this bill from doing 
more to protect our borders, secure our ports and other critical 
infrastructure. This does not serve our Nation well.
  In conclusion, while I support the bill overall, I have many concerns 
with the current abilities, or rather inabilities of the Department of 
Homeland Security to adequately address obvious homeland security gaps.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) seek 
unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers)?
  Mr. WAMP. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H5746]]

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding time.
  I rise in strong support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, as you know, when 
we made the recommendation to reorganize the Committee on 
Appropriations, it was a major reorganization, the biggest 
reorganization in many, many years, and it was the right thing to do. 
When I selected the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) to chair 
this subcommittee, it was the right choice. He has done a tremendous 
job in understanding the issues and in bringing together all of the 
various agencies that are involved in homeland security.
  This is a good bill. There are some who will say that it is too much 
spending, and others who will say that it is not enough. You are going 
to hear that on all 13 appropriations bills. I tend to think we are 
just about in the right place on all of the bills.
  Today we are focused on homeland security. On Friday we will consider 
the Military Construction appropriations bill. We have already marked 
up in addition to Homeland Security and Military Construction, after 
about a 4-week delay in getting approval on the budgetary levels, the 
Interior, Agriculture, Labor-HHS, Legislative and Defense 
appropriations bills in subcommittee.
  Tomorrow we will mark up the Labor-HHS bill, the Interior bill, and 
the Agriculture appropriations bill in the full committee.
  On Thursday we will mark up the Defense appropriations bill and the 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill in full committee. So for the 
Members' interested in having some idea of our schedule, we plan to 
have those bills through the House before the August recess.
  The committee, once we were freed up from the hold that we had due to 
budgetary issues, has moved quickly and in a very responsible way, and 
I am happy to report, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to this good bill 
we are considering today, the Military Construction bill, which is also 
a good bill, will be considered on Friday and the Committee on 
Appropriations is well underway with the eleven other bills and has a 
very aggressive schedule.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to know how to handle the money in this 
bill because in my view the reorganization which took place leaves us 
with still a very discombobulated set of agencies, and it also I think 
has confused people about what our priorities are.
  I am proud of the fact that on four separate occasions this Committee 
on Appropriations on a bipartisan basis tried to add additional funding 
for key homeland security items even though on each of those four 
occasions the White House opposed our efforts. But I want to tell you 
that today I think the chairman has produced a perfectly reasonable 
bill provided that we think that the status quo is all right given 
everything that has happened.
  My problem is that I and my staff and the chairman of the full 
committee and his staff, have had extensive conversations with 
virtually every one of the national securities agencies in this 
country. And we got from them a year ago, a year and a half ago, and we 
have gotten from them as recently as a few weeks ago, their honest best 
estimates about where we need additional support in order to increase 
security of people on the home front.
  The problem we have today is that we cannot put the resources in this 
bill that we ought to be putting in because the Congress, the majority 
party in the Congress, has decided that instead their number one and 
virtually only priority is tax cuts. And those are skewed mightily to 
the most well-off people in this country.
  And the problem is that when you decide that you are going to put a 
trillion dollars into tax cuts, then that means that money is not 
available, not even a portion of it, to use to deal with our high 
priority needs at home, be they education or health care or, in this 
case, homeland security. And so what happens is that because of the way 
the budget process is handled, the public never gets to understand what 
the linkage is between the tax cut decisions that were made by this 
Congress and the linkage with these funding limitations for high 
priority security items.
  So very simply, I will be trying to offer an amendment that does a 
number of things. We will add about $400 million to the Coast Guard for 
port security grants. The Coast Guard estimates that their long-term 
needs are for $4.4 billion. We think we ought to do more than just add 
$100 million to it under those circumstances.
  We would increase our share of funding, the share of the Federal 
contribution for port facility security needs. The problem is, if we 
stay with the $100 million contained in this bill, it will take about 
20 years to close the need in the estimate of the Coast Guard.
  We also provide $100 million to implement the Maritime Transportation 
Security Act to improve and analyze vessel threat information.
  We also add $100 million to the Customs inspectors so we can have 
1,300 additional people inspecting containers shipped into the United 
States. Right now only 2 percent of those containers are checked. We 
think that is a needlessly reckless vulnerability. We are trying to 
increase by 6 percent the total number of inspector personnel. I think 
that is hardly out of line.
  Then we add $200 million to try to improve northern border security. 
As I pointed out in the Committee on Rules, during Operation Liberty 
Shield, 10 aircraft came across the border without clearance even while 
we were patrolling that northern border by air. We have no idea who or 
what would have been in those planes.
  We proposed to pay for this funding by reducing the size of the tax 
cut that will go to those with incomes of more than a million dollars 
next year. We proposed to reduce the size of their tax cut by 6 percent 
so that instead of getting $88,000 on average, they will get $83,000 
per average. That is hardly putting them in the poor house. But it 
would enable us to reestablish additional support for these crucial 
investments.
  I would urge the House to allow us to consider that amendment because 
the public has a right to know which of us are for it and which of us 
are against it. They have a right to know whether we put tax cuts for 
wealthy people ahead of the security of this Nation.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of 
the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill. This bill 
is a first of its kind but, more important, in the history that is 
being created with this first-ever homeland bill is the fact that this 
bill, simply put, makes America and my home State of New Jersey a safer 
place.
  We in New Jersey and New York and the New York metropolitan area know 
better than most how vulnerable an open and free society can be. We put 
a very human face on the homeland security issue, as 700 New Jersey 
citizens went into Lower Manhattan that terrible morning on September 
11, 2001, and never came home again, and many more people in New York 
City as well and residents from over 80 countries. This is all very 
personal.
  These appropriations if spent and managed wisely may well prevent 
another catastrophic attack on American soil. While we can never really 
totally eliminate our vulnerabilities, this bill takes important steps 
to better protect our people and the infrastructure that carries them 
into and around New York City and over and under the Hudson River each 
and every day and protects people in other communities and cities 
around the Nation as well.
  Notably, this historic bill recognizes that, while the Department of 
Homeland Security has the lead in developing our national homeland 
security strategy, implementation of the strategy requires the active 
collaboration

[[Page H5747]]

and contributions of all States and municipal governments, and the 
private sector as well. It also recognizes that many of the agencies 
merged into the Department of Homeland Security in March have 
traditional missions.
  For these and other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the passage of 
this appropriations bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to 
participate in this first-ever debate on the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), the chairman; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the 
ranking member, for their leadership of our subcommittee and the fine 
staff, majority and minority, for their good work.
  Our task was to develop a budget where none had previously existed 
for a Department that is struggling to master its mission. Hearings 
could not even be arranged for many of the largest and most important 
of the Department's 11 major agencies. As a result, we did not have the 
benefit of questioning important agencies such as Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Information 
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and Office of Domestic 
Programs. Those four agencies alone constitute 31 percent of the 
Department's total budget.
  The bill before us today provides over $35 billion for the new 
Department, which is $1 billion over the administration's request. In 
addition to providing for big-ticket items such as $5.6 billion for 
Project Bioshield, it provides $4.4 billion in grants to our first 
responders, which is 25 percent more than the President requested, and 
$900 million for the science and technology directorate to promote the 
research and development of security-related technologies.
  I am also pleased with the attention paid to the equally important 
non-homeland security traditional missions of the many agencies now 
incorporated in this new Department. For example, the bill before us 
today rejects the administration's proposal to discontinue the section 
404 postdisaster hazard mitigation program and combines it with $200 
million for predisaster mitigation activities to both learn from the 
past and prepare for the future.
  I am also encouraged that the bill recognizes the potential of our 
Nation's institutions of higher learning: $80 million is included for 
the rapid development of promising homeland security technologies by 
universities, national laboratories, nonprofit institutions and private 
companies, as well as $35 million for university and fellowship 
programs, including $25 million for the creation of university-based 
centers of excellence.
  There are, however, Mr. Chairman, ample grounds for concern: for 
example, the security of our Nation's ports. Despite no request from 
the administration, the subcommittee has appropriated $100 million for 
port security grants to shore up our significant vulnerabilities there. 
Unfortunately, our Republican friends rejected a Democratic amendment 
that would have added $500 million toward the $4.4 billion the Coast 
Guard estimates is needed for port facility security improvements. We 
would have paid for that by a small reduction in the tax cut going to 
people making over $1 million a year.
  Still, the subcommittee has been assured and must continue to demand 
the completion of port vulnerability assessments at the Nation's 55 
largest ports by the end of 2004.
  I remain concerned, Mr. Chairman, with overall fiscal year 2004 
appropriations for law enforcement and emergency services. Given the 
importance of our Nation's first responders to the security of our 
communities, I want to ensure that the overall funding levels for the 
Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services, 
(COPS), the Byrne grant programs, and related accounts remain at or 
above fiscal 2003 levels.
  I support this Homeland Security appropriations bill with the 
expectation that other appropriations bills, unlike the President's 
budget request, will provide adequately for first responders. We cannot 
allow those on the front lines to fall victim to an appropriations 
shell game, giving with one hand, taking away with the other, to the 
detriment of our local communities.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been over a year and a half since September 11. 
Much has been accomplished; yet many, many challenges remain. I rise 
today in support of this appropriations bill, while recognizing the 
progress we have yet to make in providing for the security of our 
homeland.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very valuable member of our 
subcommittee, who has contributed much to this bill.
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to make two points: one, if my 
colleagues like what they see with our Armed Forces and what they have 
seen in the last several months around the world in terms of our men 
and women in uniform, I want them to know that what we are trying to do 
with homeland security is essentially the same kind of bipartisan 
cooperation here in the Congress so that we adequately resource and 
establish the priorities for homeland security that mirror what we have 
done in the Congress to support national security throughout the years, 
so that the technology that is deployed and the efficiencies that are 
created, the accountability that is instilled in the Department of 
Homeland Security is the same as the Department of Defense, and it is 
difficult. We can always spend more money, but I want my colleagues to 
know that this bill adequately and effectively resources the needs that 
we have today.
  I also want to point out that a lot is going to be said about tax 
cuts as we debate all of the appropriations bills, it already has been, 
but this is not a tax bill. We cannot cut taxes or raise taxes in an 
appropriation bill. We are charged with spending the money within the 
budget agreement, and that debate was in April. It obviously lingers 
here, but that debate was in April. Now we have the responsibility 
within the budget agreement to spend the money and set the priorities; 
and in doing so at homeland security, we have had extraordinary 
cooperation.
  I salute the professional staff, I think one of the best staffs that 
has ever been assembled here; and it was important that we put the best 
people on the field that we could possibly find, on both sides of the 
aisle. Our committee work and our chairman and our ranking member, the 
leadership has been extraordinary; but this is such an important issue. 
It needs to be the best possible.
  So we are off to a good start. Let us stay focused.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first simply say on a comment that 
we just heard on the House floor that it is related to taxes, because 
it is a simple mathematical equation. If we have less money to spend 
because we give it away to the rich, then we have less money for 
education, for housing, for senior citizens, and for homeland security; 
and this is a fact of life.
  However, having said that, I want to take this opportunity, first, to 
thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for this historic moment in putting 
together this bill. This bill, in my opinion, has some deficiencies; 
but on the other hand, it is a historic bill. It is the first time we 
have attempted to put together a bill like this and to take care of a 
need. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 
2555.
  On September 11, everything changed in this country. The savage 
attacks on New York and Washington brought home to America that the 
threat of terrorism at home was terribly real. Among the responses by 
Congress were the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and 
the reorganization of the Committee on Appropriations to oversee and 
fund the new Department. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 
ably taken up the challenge of chairing the new

[[Page H5748]]

House Subcommittee on Homeland Security. However, the leadership of 
this House has failed to give him or our ranking member the resources 
they need to do the job. The bill would not even provide enough funding 
to keep up with inflation, never mind step up the pace of improvements 
to our security.
  As has been amply covered in other statements and is thoroughly 
demonstrated by the Obey amendment, which the Republican leadership 
through the Committee on Rules refused to make in order, there are 
gaping holes in our security, and at the rate we are going it will be 
many years before they can be filled. From ports to airport perimeters 
to our borders, we continue to face risk to our security that must be 
addressed, but cannot be, under this bill.
  On a somewhat more parochial level, I am disappointed that we were 
unable to do more for grants to high-density urban and high-threat 
areas. Secretary Ridge just yesterday stated that he believed $750 
million would be ``a nice place to start,'' not the $500 million now in 
the bill.
  If I sound somewhat negative in my support of this bill, one needs to 
understand that I was there in New York on September 11. I saw the 
tragedy that took place. I saw the crime committed on our country, and 
the scene of the crime was New York; and so New York has had a tendency 
to know what it is that we need to deal with this issue because we saw 
it firsthand. That does not take away our respect for our chairman, our 
ranking member, the work of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, I reiterate my support for the bill in the 
hope that as it continues to go through the Senate, it becomes the bill 
it should be.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very distinguished and very helpful 
member of our subcommittee who contributed greatly to this bill.
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman for the 
great job that he has done on this bill. It is the first Homeland 
Security appropriation bill in history. We are charting new waters 
here, and I also want to strongly compliment the great staff that we 
have on the subcommittee. They have done just an outstanding job to 
bring this very difficult bill together with all the ramifications that 
we have.
  All Members here should be keenly aware of how difficult this task is 
and how broad the jurisdiction is, trying to combine 22 different 
Federal agencies into one Department, have them communicate with each 
other, have them function together, have them understand their role is 
to cooperate with States and local governments to ensure our homeland 
security.
  This is a bill unlike any other that we have; and as the Chairman has 
said so many times, we are successful when nothing happens. As we are 
spending all this money, if the final outcome is that everything 
remains quiet, we have been successful, and it is very difficult to 
judge exactly how many dollars need to go exactly where to complete our 
role, but I think the chairman and the subcommittee have done an 
outstanding job.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and commend Chairman 
Rogers for his attention to the many difficult issues we have discussed 
in our hearings on homeland security.
  He has been given the tough job of putting together a spending bill 
for this new Department and this bill is a testament to his good work 
and the good work of the Subcommittee staff--they have done an 
excellent job under difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Chairman, the approach the Subcommittee has taken with this bill 
has been one of strong support for the mission of this new Department 
and a scrutiny of the many requests and ideas put forth by Members and 
others.
  I believe this has been the best approach because we are moving 
through uncharted territory. One of my concerns has been that--going 
forward with this new bill--we would put forth too much money in a way 
that would paint us into a corner before all of the most pressing 
homeland security needs became clear.
  I believed early on--and still believe--the members of this Committee 
deserve to know the most efficient methods in which to deploy our 
Homeland Security resources.
  We cannot appropriately fund programs that do not have understandable 
goals or clear justifications. Every State and Member of Congress 
should be aware of the pitfalls of adding monies to specific accounts 
because they feel they have the best answer to our Homeland Security 
problems.
  Let me remind you. We are witnessing the infancy of a Department. 
There are few of us in this body who have been faced with the enormous 
and important task of funding a new Department of this size.
  I am certain nearly every one of you has been asked to request 
funding for a specific appropriation for a specific homeland security 
project. I'm betting that most of you have been overwhelmed by the 
number of ``potential targets'' in your district.
  Those of us on the Subcommittee share your concern. But, this bill is 
not about Congress making local security decisions--it is about making 
sure our local responders have a functional Federal agency to work with 
to solve those problems.
  That said--as we move deeper into the process of providing for our 
Homeland Security, we are going to get a clearer picture of what our 
needs are. We will be in a better position to prioritize those needs.
  Congress is not in a position to mess around with local funding 
matters. Until the Congress, the administration and our local providers 
have confidence in the long-term needs, I think the approach we are 
taking today--in this first year of funding for this new Department--is 
the correct one.
  Again, I want to commend the Chairman for his work on this bill and I 
urge all of the Members of this body to support this bill.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SABO. How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), who has been a 
member of the subcommittee who has been extremely helpful to us in this 
bill.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to especially thank the chairman of 
the subcommittee for all his great work.
  This is not just about the merging of 22 Federal agencies into one. 
This is not just about responding to the needs of first responders. 
This is not just about establishing a system that not only helps first 
responders but creates a system of first preventers. This has really 
been a monumental task undertaken to give direction to an entity, a 
notion, a thought about protecting the American people here at the 
homeland, something prior to September 11, 2001 we did not give a lot 
of time to and that goes well beyond anything this government has ever 
done. This is about first responders, this is about border security, 
this is about aviation and port security, it is about a BioShield 
program, and it is about the four corners of defense.
  I want to take my 1 minute to especially tell the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), how thankful I 
am as a New Yorker, as an American citizen, as someone who lost friends 
and neighbors in the attack of September 11, for the commitment that he 
is honoring that we all made on September 11, 2001, for the great work 
that he has put into this, and for the fact that I feel greatly 
confident that as we go forward and need to make adjustments as this 
process evolves, that we have the right person in place at the 
subcommittee level.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the first annual 
appropriations measure for the Department of Homeland Security. This 
bill will help us equip our Nation to prepare for and respond to future 
disasters. But it is not enough. When it comes to protecting our 
citizens, we must move faster and we must be stronger.
  One critical shortcoming facing us is the failure of the DHS 
Intelligence Director to fulfill its role as the agency's new nerve 
center. The effective operation of this unit is indispensable to

[[Page H5749]]

the success of the rest of the Department. Instead, resources are being 
allocated and priorities are being set without a reliable threat 
assessment that can be mapped against existing vulnerabilities.
  We also continue to fall short of meeting our responsibility to first 
responders. Firefighters, police, health care workers and others on the 
front lines need our support to keep America safe. With dozens of 
States experiencing grave budget crises, first responders are more 
desperate than ever for Federal assistance.
  In countless other areas, from port security to air cargo screening 
to computer interoperability, we are not moving fast enough and we have 
not become strong enough. We simply must make homeland security our top 
priority and devote the necessary resources to it.
  Even at a time of mounting deficits, though, the administration and 
Republican leaders in Congress have found trillions of dollars for tax 
cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. I only wish the same 
determination were at evidence in this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the hard working member of 
our subcommittee.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for the tremendous job that he 
and his staff have done in putting together the inaugural Homeland 
Security appropriations bill and also for the honor of allowing me to 
serve on that subcommittee as well.
  This bill does make a large investment in our Nation's first 
responders. We have added $888 million above the President's request 
for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, Firefighters and Emergency 
Management. This also includes another $750 million in firefighter 
grants, which has greatly been appreciated in Missouri and, in my 
judgment, is one of the most successful programs that FEMA and DHS have 
undertaken.
  The bill also makes another important investment in intercity bus 
security by adding $10 million for this critical initiative. We also 
include over $5 billion for various transportation security initiatives 
to ensure that not only our airports continue to run smoothly but also 
our ports and our highways.
  We make a large investment in the future by investing $900 million 
for science and technology. The funds will target research, development 
and deployment of innovative technologies that will help us protect the 
Nation well into the future.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman again and also 
Michelle, Stephanie, Jeannie, Jeff, Brian, Tammy, and Tom for the great 
work they have done.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the disappointments I had in this rule was it 
did not waive a point of order on what I thought was a very reasonable 
limitation on the development of CAPPS2. The gentleman from Kentucky 
graciously accepted that amendment in committee. I would hope that the 
folks who are objecting would not raise a point of order when we get to 
that in the regular bill.
  The provision is a moderate attempt to make sure that this very, very 
large system of compiling information on the American public receives 
the closest of scrutiny and the closest of examination by GAO and 
others before it is implemented.
  Our amendment left in place the money for the program, left in place 
the capacity of the Department to proceed with work on how they want to 
put the program together, but requires it be scrutinized by GAO and the 
Academy of Science to look at the privacy issues and also to look at 
its effectiveness. It has the potential to be the largest intrusion of 
the American government into the private lives of American people that 
has ever occurred. It also, on the other hand, has the ability to be a 
system that totally complicates our screening process if it is not done 
well. Rather than simplify, it may make our whole screening process 
more cumbersome and more costly and less effective.
  If a point of order is raised, the only alternative we will have is 
to seek a pure limitation without the language. I would hope the House 
would adopt such a limitation, if that is the situation we find 
ourselves in, but I much prefer we preserve the language which is for 
new activity of the Department, one not specifically authorized with 
guidelines by Congress. It is a new activity that the Department is 
pursuing and we simply want to put some regulations in place as they 
move forward to make sure this whole new large complicated program is 
put in place in a fashion that would work.
  I might remind people this is an agency that has had trouble figuring 
out whether their own workforce has had criminal involvement in the 
past. They are struggling to make sure that their personnel do not have 
criminal backgrounds. They have not succeeded doing that yet. So we 
should be a little cautious before we give them a blank check to move 
forward with a huge new complicated screening process of the American 
public.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), another hard-working member of 
our subcommittee.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, one of our greatest strengths as a Nation 
has always been our ability to move people and products more safely and 
efficiently than anywhere else in the world. Unfortunately, as we saw 
on 9/11, this strength makes our transportation infrastructure a 
tempting target for terrorists.
  Those hijackers that turned four planes into missiles were not just 
trying to kill thousands, they were also trying to restrict our freedom 
of movement, our way of life. As people travel more and more, and 
further and further for business and pleasure, the potential for a 
large-scale loss of life and an attack involving an airplane, boat, 
train or truck grows.
  While protecting innocent lives is our top priority in homeland 
security, we all know that serious economic consequences can result 
after a terrorist attack when it disrupts the flow of goods and people 
in America's transportation network. These disruptions do not just cost 
money for big corporations with stranded products, they raise grocery 
prices for families, cut the earnings of farmers, and cause small 
businesses to close their doors.
  In recognizing the importance and vulnerability of America's 
transportation infrastructure, Congress has moved quickly to strengthen 
transportation security. Since 9/11, we have provided more than $10 
billion to safeguard and will add $5 million more in this legislation.
  Mr. SABO. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has 10 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York, my good friend, 
for a colloquy, who will then yield back to me.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I intend to do just that, and I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy as well with the 
gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security. The chairman, who I have had the pleasure of working with, 
has done a great job, as I said before on this bill, and I thank the 
gentleman for the inclusion of high threat funds in this particular 
bill and actually for having created the fund in the first instance. 
But I wish to highlight some concerns I have with the current 
distribution formula.
  The City of New York spends $13.5 million a week, $700 million a year 
on extra police protection during its current state of alert. That 
amounts to more than $1 billion since September 11. And I am not 
talking about money that the city would spend anyway for police 
protection. I am talking about the net additional amount New York

[[Page H5750]]

spends to protect against terrorist attacks.
  New York's needs were highlighted as recently as last week when news 
of an al-Qaeda operative was arrested for plotting to sever the cables 
on the Brooklyn Bridge. The operative said one of the main foils to his 
plan was the added security around the bridge which prevented him from 
acting.
  One of the reasons terrorist prevention needs are not met by some 
cities is because of the formula the Department uses to distribute 
funds. I know this is an authorizing issue more than an appropriations 
issue, but no first responder discussion is complete without 
recognizing the current formulas, which do not provide enough emphasis 
on the threat information.
  The President and the administration at times have said they support 
a threat-based distribution of first responder funds in this national 
strategy for homeland security, and it is my hope this Congress moves 
quickly to enact a new threat-based formula to apply to first 
responders.
  I recently introduced a bill to reform the first responder formula to 
reflect today's realities, and that bill would lessen the impact of 
allocating funds based on geography in favor of a quantitative 
assessment of threat information, vulnerability and consequences. We 
are dealing with serious people and we need a serious formula.
  I know the war in Iraq is over, to whatever degree, and the national 
threat level has decreased since then, but last week's news stories 
prove we must remain vigilant in our fight against terrorism, 
particularly in New York, and I cannot stress strongly enough the need 
for focusing first responder funds on high-threat areas. It is no 
secret where the terrorists are focusing their resources, and I would 
ask the gentleman from Kentucky how he can address the concerns I 
outlined if the gentlewoman from New York will yield time to the 
gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for agreeing to enter into this colloquy, 
and I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from 
New York.
  We in New York have been bracing for another terrorist blow since 
September 11, and all of America has experienced that anxiety. I know 
the chairman is totally committed to doing everything possible to 
protect our communities against any potential attack.

                              {time}  1430

  It is my understanding from both Federal and local intelligence 
briefings that New York is still acknowledged to be the top target for 
terrorism. I believe that New York City and other cities across our 
country, including Yonkers, New York, in my district, need dedicated 
resources to protect sites of national significance and critical 
infrastructure.
  I agree with Secretary Ridge that we must distribute Federal funds on 
the basis of threat of terrorist attack and need, as well as 
population. That is not to say that States without high-density urban 
areas do not have important security needs. Our resources are limited, 
our responsibilities enormous, so we must be strategic; and I hope that 
the number of us who represent high-threat, high-density urban areas 
can work with the gentleman to examine this issue.
  I appreciate the leadership of our chairman, and I thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his hard work.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and 
gentlewoman for this colloquy and applaud the fight they have led for 
New York, which is one of the reasons we enacted a total of $800 
million for high-threat, high-density urban areas in fiscal year 2003.
  Of that $800 million, New York received $186 million to assist first 
responders with the increased security costs associated with the war in 
Iraq and Operation Liberty Shield. I am aware of the concerns the 
formula has generated. I assure my colleagues I appreciate the degree 
to which New York is a target and the expenses New York faces. I am 
also aware of those rural areas that rely on the basic formula grants 
to fulfill their first responder requirements. I believe any reform to 
the formula must ensure that these rural areas are not abandoned. I 
will work closely with the gentlewoman and the gentleman as the bill 
progresses to conference on these and other matters.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In relationship to our latest colloquy, I understand the concern of 
people over the situation in New York. They clearly have unusual 
problems. Would the chairman agree with me that we do not know 
precisely how the agency sets criteria for the balance of funds in this 
particular discretionary program?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Only in a general sense. The presence of 
high-risk infrastructure, the urban intensity of the region, we leave 
it to the discretion of the Secretary, as I think we should, rather 
than some formula. As the gentleman knows, we have been working 
together.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we have a little trouble getting a precise 
understanding of what criteria are used.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, the gentleman is correct, but I think in due course of time, 
perhaps before the bill finally reaches the President, we will have 
found out more.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we consider today, of course, for 
the first time the appropriations for the new Department of Homeland 
Security. Just as the new Department is taking its first steps to make 
America safer, we are also embarking on an effort to try to secure the 
resources that we need for the longer term to ensure victory in the war 
against terrorism. This bill is a good start, and I support dedicating 
resources above the President's request to prepare our communities by 
training and equipping first responders and securing our ports and our 
transportation systems.
  However, as we have been finding in the hearings before the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security, serious deficiencies remain in the 
Department's ability to carry out its mission of protecting all 
Americans from those harms that could come our way through terrorism. 
Testimony before our Select Committee on Homeland Security revealed 
that there is one, precisely one, person in the Department of Homeland 
Security assessing the bioterror threat to America and determining how 
to match that threat against our vulnerabilities and then make plans to 
protect America from bioterrorism.
  It is clear we must move faster and we must be stronger to protect 
America. We have learned that, while over 4,000 port facilities and 
10,000 ships that enter our ports are required to undergo security 
reviews, there is no funding to fulfill that mission. We must move 
faster and be stronger. We have learned that there are serious gaps in 
coverage on our northern border. There is on average only one person 
guarding every 16 miles of our Canadian border. The PATRIOT Act called 
for tripling the forces to protect our northern border, and the 2002 
Border Security Act goes even further, but gaps still remain. We must 
move faster, and our forces must be stronger.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago this Congress voted to spend $65 
billion to prosecute the war in Iraq. We spent those funds to make sure 
that our forces had the best training and the best equipment possible. 
We need to make the same commitment to those who fight on behalf of 
homeland security today.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) have done an extraordinary job 
in bringing to the floor a bill that has

[[Page H5751]]

as its object the most important function of the Federal Government, 
protecting these United States from attack. Nothing that we do is more 
important.
  The $29 billion in this legislation for the coming year is nearly 4 
percent more than the President requested. It is $250 for every single 
taxpayer in America. It is an extraordinary amount of money to meet the 
new challenges of the post-September 11 world.
  The $4.4 billion in this bill for first responders is nearly $1 
billion more than the President requested. We have in fact in this 
Congress increased funding for first responders by more than 1,000 
percent since September 11.
  The Select Committee on Homeland Security, of which the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
are valued members, have had hearings and field investigations of the 
problems of getting these monies to our first responders on the front 
lines. The pipeline is the problem. That money is not getting to where 
it belongs.
  That is why, in addition to the work that we can do in this bill as 
we go forward in conference, the Select Committee on Homeland Security 
will also be bringing to this floor legislation to unclog the pipeline 
and better distribute these monies on a threat basis, the way we have 
always done it for national security. We will streamline the grant 
process and base it on the principle of threat analysis.
  I commend the chairman for the resources and direction provided in 
this legislation to ensure an intelligence analytical capacity within 
the Department of Homeland Security to meet not only the biothreat, but 
all of the threats to our homeland security that we face. This is an 
enormous amount of money. We now face the task of making sure that it 
is wisely spent. In the exercise of our oversight function, we will do 
just that. Our Nation's freedoms and our way of life depend upon it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about the Obey amendment 
which will be offered shortly. The Obey amendment puts before the 
Congress of the United States, before our Republican colleagues and 
before our Democrat colleagues, the question of what options do we want 
to pursue. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has said that the 
most important objective is keeping our homeland secure, keeping 
America and Americans safe.
  The Obey amendment says do you care more about giving tax cuts to 
those at the very upper ranks of taxpayers, or do you care about 
keeping ports, airports, bridges and roads secure? It is a very simple 
question. It is a question, though, all of us must answer; and we must 
answer them with the responsibility to the American public that we have 
uppermost in our minds.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, I urge this House to allow the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to offer this amendment and to 
support this amendment and to say to America, we are prepared to 
protect you.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and congratulate the gentlewoman on Rice's 
victory in the NCAA baseball tournament last night.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
vision and knowledge of that great sport of baseball, and let me 
congratulate the Rice Owls. We are excited and delighted that we have 
such national respect.
  I rise to be able to add my support for the Obey amendment. Having 
just come back from field hearings in Long Beach and Los Angeles with 
the Committee on Homeland Security, I assure Members it is crucial to 
get funds in the hands of our local responders; and I use that 
terminology because I believe it means not only the first responders of 
firefighters and law enforcement, but nurses, doctors and hospitals, 
school districts and local government, city and county. That is why I 
have asked for amendments that I have offered to be made in order that 
in fact we expedite and simplify the regulatory maze that is required 
of these entities to get funding right on the ground.
  It was amazing from a helicopter overview to be able to see how close 
residential communities are to sites of potential terrorist acts. We 
must act now to ensure that our first responders are the first ones 
that are taken care of to protect our neighborhoods. We need to move 
forward.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to 
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
  This germane amendment would direct the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in conjunction with the appropriate federal agencies, such as 
the Federal Transit Administration, to determine the percentage of 
frontline transit employees who have received training in emergency 
preparedness and response training.
  This amendment would have also directed the Secretary of Homeland 
Security is to Report to Congress no later than 90 days after enactment 
of this legislation the percentage of ``frontline transit employees'' 
who have received emergency preparedness and response training.
  In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security would coordinate with 
the appropriate federal agencies such as the Federal Transit 
Administration and provide recommendations on what training on 
emergency preparedness and response training shall be provided to 
``frontline transit employees.''
  Mr. Chairman this amendment would have provided this new agency with 
guidance for years to come.
  Understandably, we are all grappling with setting priorities and 
funding levels for new security programs and emerging threats.
  By establishing a baseline of what security training our transit 
workforce needs, it will assist us in establishing priorities and 
funding levels in future years.
  But make no mistake about the importance of establishing a 
comprehensive transit security-training program for our nation's 
frontline transit employee workforce.
  We need to start now in order to properly plan for the future.
  For years, governments around the world have recognized that public 
transportation is a major terrorist target.
  Until 9/11 the United States has been largely spared the kinds of 
terrorist campaigns waged against public surface transportation.
  However, we cannot wait for a tragedy to happen to prompt us to 
address our vulnerabilities. We must act now!
  An October 2001 study released by the Mineta Institute, Protecting 
Public Surface Transportation Against Terrorism and Serious Crime: An 
Executive Overview cites that between 1920 and 2000 there have been 
approximately 900 terrorist attacks and other significant criminal 
incidents involving public surface transportation systems.
  However, all but 14 of these attacks occurred after 1970, the year 
that marks the beginning of modern terrorism.
  Attacks against transportation and transportation infrastructures 
accounted for 42 percent of all international terrorist attacks, 
according to the most recent statistics provided by the USDOT Office of 
Intelligence and Security in 1998.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I offer my statement for the Record.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, hometown security should be our number 
one priority to ensure the American public is safe from terrorism--both 
domestic and foreign.
  The federal government has made significant commitments, but 
unfortunately these have been more show than substance. The most recent 
example is the budget for the homeland security appropriations. I know 
from my own experience that there are vast unmet needs in every 
community around the country, and Oregon is on exception. The federal 
government should be helping communities to pay for the costly 
precautions that local governments must take to respond to high level 
security alerts, the effects of which ripple through crippled local 
budgets. We have yet to make local governments whole from the federal 
government imposed shut down of airports following September 11th. 
There are vast and clear needs for the Coast Guard which this budget 
virtually ignores.
  We are lavishing hundreds of billions in tax relief for those who 
need it the least when we are investing billions of dollars in 
questionable military expenditures, like theater missile defense or 
Star Wars. It inexcusable that we do not do a better job of listening 
to and meeting the needs of our local communities around the country. 
I, in good conscience, find it very hard to vote for this appropriation 
and hope that we will send the message that Congress should step up and 
make its action match its rhetoric and the need.

[[Page H5752]]

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2555, the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act.
  This important legislation provides $30.4 billion in funding for the 
upcoming year, $1 billion over the Administration's request, including 
$4.4 billion for grants to the police, firefighter and emergency 
medical personnel that are on the front lines of our nation's homeland 
preparedness and emergency response. In addition, I am pleased to see 
in this legislation a timeline to expedite the allocation of these 
resources within 120 days of passage of this Act.
  We have heard today, Mr. Chairman, and will continue to hear that 
there are simply not enough funds included in this bill to achieve our 
goal of making our homeland secure. The fact, however, is that to date 
the federal government has spent $20.8 billion for our nation's first 
responders, and we will continue to fund what is necessary to ensure 
they have the training, equipment and resources necessary to do their 
job.
  We in this House know full well that money spend does not simply 
translate into increased preparedness. This in only a start, and we 
must continue to be vigilant in not only appropriating adequate funds, 
but ensuring that these funds are administered strategically as part of 
a comprehensive plan to address our nation's vulnerabilities and needs. 
We must remember that while the Department of Homeland Security 
develops our national homeland security strategy, the implementation 
and the ultimate success of that strategy rests with our state and 
local governments.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, the protection of the American citizens is 
the first and foremost duty of the federal government, and this 
Congress will continue to work with the Administration, and our states 
and localities to this end. This bill is a solid next step for our 
nation's emergency preparedness and response capabilities and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey 
amendment to add an additional $1 billion to H.R. 2555 to help fill 
critical homeland security deficiencies and urge my colleagues to 
support its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would provide $30.4 billion for 
operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security in 
Fiscal Year 2004 and permit the Department to use an additional $4.8 
billion in Immigration and air passenger fees.
  Whether these amounts are sufficient for the Department to 
successfully carryout its mission is difficult to know because the 
Department has provided the subcommittee and my own Select Committee on 
Homeland Security with very little information about their mission and 
overall plan of operations. In fact, budget justifications for many 
important activities within the Department were not submitted for 
months after the President's budget was released and hearings could not 
even be arranged for four of the largest and most important of the 
Department's eleven major agencies.
  This is very troubling, Mr. Speaker, particularly in light of the 
enormity of the Department's mission to protect the country from 
terrorist attacks.
  Equally troubling is the denial by the rules committee of an 
amendment which was offered by our colleague the Ranking Democrat of 
the Appropriations committee, Dave Obey, to provide an addiitonal $1 
billion to help fill critical homeland security deficiencies. The Obey 
amendment would have added an additional $400 million to the bill for 
additional port security grants. The Coast Guard has reported that it 
needs approximately $4 billion more than the $463 million that has been 
appropriated since September 11th for port security improvements.
  In my district, the highest priority for securing our territory 
against attacks has been and continues to be the establishment of a 
``Border Patrol'' unit for the Virgin Islands.
  Working in coordination with our U.S. Attorney's Office, the U.S. 
Customs' Service, the F.B.I., the Transportation Security 
Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard, the Government of the Virgin 
Islands is in the final stages of developing a strategic anti-terrorism 
and Homeland Security plan for the territory. A critical component of 
any such plan will require additional resources for our federal 
agencies, especially the Coast Guard which has to oversee what maybe 
the busiest cruise ship port in the Caribbean--the port of Charlotte 
Amalie, St. Thomas. Additionally, the Coast Guard is also called upon 
to inspect the several ships that visit our waters daily, as well as, 
the pipes that lead from the ships to the tanks on land. Their search 
procedure for all ships follow international law and regulations differ 
for each different type of ship.
  In addition to being the location of the busiest cruise ship ports in 
the Caribbean, the U.S. Virgin Islands is also home to HVENSA, the 
largest oil refinery in the Western Hemisphere, which regularly 
receives a number of very large tankers.
  The Coast Guard has requested the establishment of a Border Patrol 
Unit for the Virgin Islands to better enable them to meet their several 
mandates for protection of our coast, which includes 175 miles of 
unprotected open borders and is the gateway to the United States as its 
southern most border.
  Enactment of the Obey amendment would have significantly increased 
the likelihood that the Virgin Islands would receive a critically need 
border patrol unit.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic members of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security have been seeking answers to a number of fundamental 
questions about the Department, since the committee's inception. We 
have been trying to find out whether the Department is fulfilling its 
responsibility to better coordinate and access threat information and 
ensure that in the event of a terrorist attack, federal, state, local 
and private entities are prepared to respond to the event. These 
questions and others remain unanswered and the bill we are debating 
today unfortunately does very little to help us receive them.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Obey amendment.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004. As a member of the 
Homeland Security Subcommittee, it has been an honor to take part in 
the formulation of the new Homeland Security Department. I would like 
to commend our Chairman, Hal Rogers, and our Ranking Member, Martin 
Sabo, who under tight fiscal restraints did the best job possible 
putting together this first appropriations bill for the new Department 
of Homeland Security.
  The Department of Homeland Security has had both success and 
failures. It has been successful in unifying principal border and 
transportation security agencies, coordinating a network of disaster 
response capabilities, and creating a central point for the analysis 
and dissemination of intelligence pertaining to terrorist threats. 
Beyond that however, the Department has failed to develop a useful 
roadmap of security goals the Department seems critical to protecting 
the homeland, such as securing the northern border, tracking all 
vessels entering American waters or insuring that airline cargo is 
effectively screened.
  As a result, many of the windows of opportunity for terrorist 
organizations such as al Qaeda are nearly as wide open today as they 
were on September 11th. Of equal concern, is the fact that the 
Department seems to be stalled in its ability to put in place a program 
to close those windows open to terrorist attacks.
  Overall this bill provides $29.4 billion in discretionary funding for 
fiscal 2004. That is only about 1.8 percent above the overall funding 
level allocated to agencies within the Department for fiscal year 2003. 
The Congressional Budget Office however, forecasts that prices will 
increase during the current fiscal year by 2.3 percent. As a result, 
the bill actually provides funding for the coming year that in terms of 
real dollars is about $150 million below current levels.
  Mr. Chairman, cities such as my hometown of Los Angeles are the ones 
who must bear the brunt of this inadequate funding. Los Angeles is one 
of the largest cities and metropolitan areas in the country, and is 
considered to be one of the most ``at risk'' areas for terrorist 
attacks. With one of the world's largest port complexes and a major 
international airport, Los Angeles has heightened vulnerability to 
potential terrorist attacks.
  Without adequate federal support, protecting our cities and towns is 
extremely costly and causes tremendous hardship on local governments. 
For example, Los Angeles officials have reported to me that during the 
days of the three Orange threat levels, the city registered $7.2 
million in additional security costs. This figure includes additional 
costs for areas such as our city airports, our port, our public utility 
centers, our convention center and our police department. Although I am 
pleased that today's bill provides $500 million for ``high threat urban 
areas'' like Los Angeles, clearly this does not provide the funds 
needed to address the security needs of Los Angeles and other highly 
vulnerable urban areas.
  In addition to representing the downtown portions of the City of Los 
Angeles, I also represent nine smaller municipalities including Downey, 
Commerce, Bell Flower, Huntington Park, and Vernon. Like other small 
cities and rural communities across the nation, these smaller cities 
are often overlooked in the urgent rush to protect the homeland and to 
establish emergency preparedness plans. These smaller cities, have 
increased security needs since September 11, 2001, and have also had to 
incur additional costs in response to our nation's heightened security 
alerts. Protecting our small cities is just as important as protecting 
our large cities, and national landmarks. To highlight this fact, I 
successfully included language in the bill's report which establishes a 
process that ensures local governments will be included in the 
development and

[[Page H5753]]

review process of each state's emergency preparedness and security 
response plan.

  Mr. Chairman, another areas of concern is the fact that the funding 
for our nation's commercial seaports continues to be dangerously 
inadequate. Our ports are one of our nation's most vulnerable assets. 
Yet this administration, and the leadership of this Congress continue 
to underfund our ports. While critics focus on the cost of providing 
this security, I want to highlight the cost of not providing this 
security. The labor shutout at the port complex of Los Angeles and Long 
Beach last fall is estimated to have cost $1 billion per day 
nationwide. This was only one port complex and yet the daily cost was 
staggering. If our ports experience a terrorist attack, international 
commerce would grind to a standstill. The Coast Guard has estimated 
that the infrastructure security needs at our ports will cost $1 
billion in the first year and some $4 billion over a ten year period. 
Yes, this bill provides only $100 million in port security grants.
  Congress was swift about providing funding to secure our nation's 
airways following the events of September 11, 2001. We must not wait 
for a similar tragedy at one of our ports to finally provide the 
necessary security funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I must also express my displeasure that the Homeland 
Security Subcommittee was unable to hold a budget hearing with the 
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. This bureau was created 
under the Department of Homeland Security. Its responsibility is to 
build and maintain a service system that provides immigration 
information and benefits to the more than seven million annual 
applicants in a timely, accurate, consistent, courteous, and 
professional manner.
  Having never met with Mr. Aguirre, the Acting Director, this 
committee has no way of knowing if this bureau is fulfilling its stated 
mission. Consequently, I am fearful that without adequate oversight and 
funding this new bureau will fall into the same bureaucratic trap that 
made the INS inadequate to meet the needs of this nation's immigrant 
community. I am hopeful that the subcommittee will have a hearing and 
receive a full budget justification from the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services before this bill comes to the floor for a vote 
next year. I am also hopeful that next year the President's budget will 
request enough funds to realistically address the thousands of cases in 
backlog at this bureau. Although the committee increased the 
President's budget request by $14 million, the amount is still fifteen 
percent less than what was provided in Fiscal Year 2003 for immigration 
services.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the ongoing difficulties 
regarding airport security screeners at Los Angeles International 
Airport (LAX). These difficulties stem from the poor quality of the 
Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) security background 
checks. Despite assurances from TSA that their airport security 
workforce had been screened, authorized at LAX and other airports 
discovered that some members of their security screener workforce had 
criminal convictions. These airports petitioned TSA for the authority 
to conduct their own background check of the screeners at their own 
expense. TSA officials at first rejected the request before finally 
granting approval. The ongoing background checks by these airports are 
continuing to identify employees with disqualifying convictions. 
Hopefully, this issue will be resolved once and for all when the Office 
of Personnel Management (OPM) completes the last of its outstanding 
background checks on the TSA airport screeners.

  Until such time, I am pleased that the bill includes language I 
offered that urges the TSA to work cooperatively with airport 
authorities that wish to conduct their own background checks of their 
TSA screener workforce.
  I am also pleased that the bill includes report language that 
provides guidance to the Department of Homeland Security on two issues 
critical to the immigrant community. The report language expresses 
concern about the pattern of harassment, excessive use of force, and 
racial profiling by private vigilante groups that conduct paramilitary-
like operations along our Southwestern border. In San Antonio for 
example, the sheriff recently arrested vigilantes who were charged with 
assault for their illegal arrest of two migrants from El Salvador. 
Vigilantes taking immigration law into their own hands is illegal, and 
their activity can lead to serious violations of fundamental rights. It 
can also interfere with the legal activities of protecting our 
homeland. For that reason, I am pleased that the report includes 
language I offered expressing concern that vigilante operations against 
migrants along the Southwestern border should not be tolerated, and may 
interfere with the work of the Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that the report contains language I 
requested directing the Department of Homeland Security to improve the 
processing and resettlement of refugees. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 
attacks, increased security checks on individual refugee cases, 
combined with greater limits on the travel of refugee and immigration 
officers, have resulted in a slowdown of interviews necessary for U.S. 
resettlement. Many of these precautions are understandable, but as the 
Department of Homeland Security begins to shape its policy and 
procedures, we need to find a safe and acceptable method to quickly 
process legitimate refugee claims.
  The world is looking to the United States for continued leadership in 
providing a safe environment free of abuse and persecution for many of 
the world's refugees. I am pleased that the report requests a plan from 
the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the State 
Department, to overcome the hurdles encountered during the processing 
of refugee claims.
  Mr. Chairman, while I am disappointed in this bill's inability to 
fully fund many of our countries initial national security needs, I 
support the efforts of the Chair and the Ranking Member to best 
allocate these limited resources. We have much more work ahead of us. I 
urge the conferees to address this issue of limited funds. In closing, 
I want to reiterate that I have enjoyed working with Chairman Rogers 
who I know did his best given the limited resources the subcommittee 
was provided.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the unfolding of the 
appropriations process for fiscal year 2004 and the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill in particular. The actual appropriations process 
commenced on April 10 when, five days before the statutory deadline, 
the U.S. Congress agreed to a budget resolution that established an 
overall limit or allocation on appropriations for fiscal year 2004.


                         The budget resolution

  The budget resolution provided a total allocation for discretionary 
appropriations of $785.6 billion in fiscal year 2004, including the 
amounts held in reserve for the Bioshield initiative. This represents a 
2.6 percent increase over the current year, which is slightly higher 
than the rate of inflation. Additionally, the budget resolution allowed 
an additional $23.2 billion to be appropriated in advance for fiscal 
year 2005.
  The Congress agreed on this number after considerable deliberations 
involving the Leadership, the Budget and Appropriations Committees, and 
rank and file Members. We started with CBO's reestimate of the 
President budget request of $786.6 billion. We added $890 million for 
biological and chemical threats and another $215 million for the Iraq 
supplemental. At the same time, it was reduced by $2.2 billion to 
reflect advance appropriations that were not part of the President's 
original budget submission.

                           302(b) allocations

  Last week the House Appropriations Committee finally decided how to 
divide that allocation across its 13 appropriations subcommittees. 
Under these allocations, total appropriations for defense and military 
construction will have climbed by 7.1 percent a year between fiscal 
years 2000 and 2004. Somewhat surprisingly, all other non-defense 
discretionary spending will have increased over the same period by a 
robust 8.2 percent.
  The Appropriations Committee appropriately exercised its prerogative 
to allocate funding based on Congressional priorities. The 
Appropriations Committee comes in under the Administration request's by 
$3.2 billion for defense and $1.8 billion for Foreign Affairs. At the 
same time, it would exceed the President's request by $448 million for 
Labor, HHS and Education, $400 million for VA-HUD, $279 million for 
Energy & Water, $221 million for Agriculture, and $241 million for 
Commerce, State & Justice.


                    Homeland Security appropriations

  Today we consider the first of these appropriations bills, H.R. 2555, 
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004. This is a landmark 
occasion: the first separate appropriation bill for the Department of 
Homeland Security, which consolidates 22 Federal agencies and is 
expected to reach 180,000 employees.
  The spending levels in this important measure are consistent with the 
limits for fiscal year 2004. The bill provides $29.4 billion in 
appropriations for fiscal year 2004, an increase of $8.1 billion or 38 
percent above last year's level. Much of this increase is for Border 
and Transportation, Emergency Preparedness, Informational Analysis and 
the Coast Guard. With total fiscal year 2004 appropriations equal to 
the allocation for the Homeland Security Subcommittee, the bill 
complies with the Congressional Budget Act.
  The bill does provide an advance appropriation for Bioshield in 
fiscal year 2005, however, that is not permitted under the terms of the 
budget resolution.
  H.R. 2555 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which are 
exempt from budget limits. Nor does it rescind any previously 
appropriated BA.
  This bill demonstrates Congress' unflinching commitment to win the 
war against terrorism.

[[Page H5754]]

Consistent with the Budget Resolution, the bill provides resources 
above the President's request in areas like Border and Transportation 
Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response, and Science and 
Technology. This bill will enhance the Nation's ability to secure our 
borders, protect lives and property, and disrupt terrorist financing.
  The bill also provides appropriations for the acquisition of various 
countermeasures against nuclear, radiological and biological threats. 
The authorization for these countermeasures has been reported by the 
Energy and Commerce and Government Reform Committees and will be acted 
upon by the Homeland Security Committee later this week.


                               bioshield

  I am pleased the Appropriations and authorizing committees were able 
to meet a critical need in the fiscally responsible manner outlined in 
the budget resolution. Rather than create another entitlement program, 
the program was kept fully within the oversight of the Appropriations 
Committees. In order to give the administration the assurance of 
adequate funding in the outyears, the bill provides advance 
appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2013.
  My only concern with this approach is that some might be tempted to 
exploit the fact that much of the advance of appropriations are scored 
in fiscal year 2005 on the expectation they will spend out over time by 
reducing that amount in 2005 to achieve spurious savings. I take it in 
good faith that the Appropriations Committee will leave these funds 
untouched in fiscal year 2005 so they will be available as the need 
arises in subsequent years.


                                closing

  As we enter the appropriations season, I wish Chairman Young and all 
our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the best as we strive to 
meet the needs of the American public within the framework established 
by the budget resolution.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2555

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2004, and for other purposes, namely:

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

                      Departmental Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for management and operations of the 
     Department of Homeland Security $221,493,000; of which not to 
     exceed $78,975,000 shall be for the Office of the Secretary 
     and Executive Management; of which not to exceed $116,139,000 
     shall be for the Office of the Under Secretary for 
     Management; of which not to exceed $8,106,000 shall be for 
     the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Border and 
     Transportation Security; of which not to exceed $10,044,000 
     shall be for the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for 
     Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection and the 
     Command Center; of which not to exceed $3,293,000 shall be 
     for the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency 
     Preparedness and Response; and of which not to exceed 
     $4,936,000 shall be for the Immediate Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Science and Technology: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $2,000,000 may be used for unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $40,000 shall be for allocation 
     within the Department for official reception and 
     representation expenses as the Secretary may determine.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       In the item relating to ``Departmental Administration-
     salaries and expenses'' after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``Bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection-salaries and expenses (including transfer of 
     funds)'' after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for bringing us 
this bill on such an urgent matter.
  I come with a small amendment that has rather big ramifications on 
our southern border with Mexico. I represent all of the California-
Mexico border. As the President of the United States and his Secretary 
of Homeland Security agreed with the President of Mexico, we need a 
smart border, a smart border meaning security, yes, tight security, but 
efficiency also.

                              {time}  1445

  We need a blending at our borders of security and efficiency. In my 
district, I have got about a quarter of a million, that is over 
250,000, legal crossings every day through the six or seven border 
crossings in my district. That is a lot of traffic. That traffic is 
very legal. It is for important purposes, important for our economy, 
important for our families, jobs, housing, culture, education, all that 
is going on in this exchange across the U.S.-Mexico border. We have 
shown that we can have the security we want with efficiency. We started 
a new program several years ago called SENTRI, meaning Secure Electric 
Network for Travelers Rapid Inspections. What that means in English is 
that we give people who have legitimate business across the border to 
travel, and they do it frequently, we give them as extensive a 
background check as is necessary to guarantee they are secure. We also 
give their vehicle a background check, and that vehicle and that person 
is matched when they cross the border by a smart card and a 
transponder. That is the SENTRI system. The Customs and INS now and 
under Department of Homeland Security set aside certain lanes of the 
border crossings for that purpose, for the SENTRI crossings.
  Unfortunately, the demand for those smart cards way exceeds the 
ability right now of the Department of Homeland Security to meet. There 
is a backlog of 6, 7, 8 months. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security, 
and I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for this, in their report said 
what a great program SENTRI is. They complimented the fact that it 
exists. What we at the border need, though, is some assurance from this 
Department that money will go to this incredibly important use. We are 
not sure given some of the problems in the organization of this new 
Department that people are looking at the border and will think about 
it. We need some accountability that the money will go into that 
program.
  We now have 42,000 motorists using SENTRI. As I said, there are three 
or four times that who are waiting to participate. The backlog is over 
6 months. There is no assurance that that backlog will decrease unless 
there is some dedication of funds to this program.
  I know that there is on the part of the committee a rightful concern 
with, ``earmarks.'' I just ask that the chairman think about 
accountability not only in the Department but for the stakeholders at 
the border. We have people on both sides of the border, people who are 
doing legal business that are so important to our economies. Mexico is 
now our largest trading partner. A big part of that trade goes on 
trucks through California, the other part through Texas. We need to 
move that quickly with security guaranteed.
  That is what my amendment will do. The folks who are doing this at 
the border need to know that the money is going to be there. They need 
to know that their business can be carried on. They need to know that 
they can expand their business because they know that crossing the 
border will be enhanced in a positive fashion. I say to the gentleman 
from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota, I know that there is 
some reluctance to specify programs in their bill. I would just hope 
that such an amendment with such ramifications for our whole economy, 
and not just in Texas and New Mexico and Arizona and California where 
the border crossings are, but in Kentucky where there are people 
waiting for just on-time delivery. They need to know that SENTRI is 
working. I would ask for approval of $5 million for the SENTRI program.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment by the 
gentleman who has been working very

[[Page H5755]]

hard on the issue. Originally, this program permitted those certified 
as low-risk travelers to cross the Mexican border on an expedited basis 
for 1 year. However, in order to accommodate the unexpected increases 
in enrollment in that program following 9-11, Customs and Border 
Protection in February 2003 extended the enrollment period to 2 years. 
That had the effect of benefiting both participants in the program and 
the government by reducing paperwork and made the annual enrollment fee 
a biennial fee. But current enrollees had their eligibility 
automatically extended for 2 years from the date of their last 
enrollment and the applications backlog that was being blamed for 
increased waits at the border has been greatly reduced. So I do not 
think the problem is as bad as it perhaps was at the outset.
  Number two, we took $333 million in the 2003 wartime supplemental and 
gave that to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. We have not 
received their spend plans on how they intend to use those funds. The 
Department, however, could, I would remind the gentleman, could use a 
portion of the supplemental to support the SENTRI expansion. They do 
have some discretion.
  Number three, and the gentleman alluded to this. We have already cut 
the funds for the Department's administration by 25 percent. The moneys 
he would take with this amendment would come out of administration. We 
have already cut them past the bone almost. Additional reductions could 
reduce the basic departmental administration programs and impair their 
ability to fulfill management of the entire agency.
  For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the 
amendment and would urge Members to reject it.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Filner amendment to the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. This amendment would provide the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection with critical funding to reduce 
the backlog of applications for the SENTRI program. I acknowledge the 
words that were just spoken about the need to use administrative 
funding; but, Mr. Chairman, we use less than 1 percent of that budget 
for this program. I want to tell you how important it is. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Filner) and I are well acquainted with the merits 
of the SENTRI program. I thank him for his work on this amendment and 
for his continued support on border management issues. The gentleman 
from California is a cosponsor of the SAFE Border Act, legislation that 
I introduced to modernize SENTRI. I would also like to thank Chairman 
Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for the inclusion of report language 
regarding SENTRI.
  So what does SENTRI do? It prescreens applicants. The program accepts 
only low-risk travelers who pass a background and a vehicle check, and 
it focuses enforcement efforts on those travelers who are not 
prescreened. Moving low-risk travelers into SENTRI lanes permits border 
agents to concentrate on other border crossers. It allows the entry of 
thousands of San Diego and Tijuana residents who cross the border every 
day and play a vital role in the area's economic and social life as 
commuters, shoppers, or visitors. Unfortunately, our border 
infrastructure has not kept pace with the booming traffic volume, and 
travelers frequently encounter delays and congestion at the border. 
SENTRI is an innovative program. It integrates security with 
efficiency. In this program we have a model of best practices that 
enhance national security and facilitate legitimate traffic. Why would 
we not direct resources to this program? Why would we not take every 
advantage, every opportunity to increase security?
  To some extent SENTRI has become a victim of its own success. 
Enrollment increased, as we know, by more than 100 percent after 
September 11 and currently prospective applicants must wait several 
months. Next March, SENTRI will certainly need funding to handle the 
heavy processing demands caused by both renewals and new enrollees. Our 
agents at the border shoulder an enormous responsibility every single 
day. We owe them the appropriate resources and support they need to 
carry out their duties. We must also think about the technology and 
equipment needs of a program like SENTRI. This type of investment in 
our ports of entry results in greater border security and better trade 
flow.
  Supporting this amendment, Mr. Chairman, would not only allow agents 
to reduce the SENTRI application backlog but means that the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection could do more background checks and 
improve national security. The ability to control our border is 
national security. It is trade and it is commerce for our region. It is 
an investment in the future of our ports of entry. It is communities 
seeking solutions to address our border management issues.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Filner amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. I just would like to point out in furtherance of both our 
arguments and before the gentleman from Texas speaks, that there may be 
a rather slow hiring at the Department and thus carryover funding may 
be more than anticipated. With this really small amount of money from 
that account, it should not influence in a negative fashion anything 
about the hiring for this Homeland Security Department. I would again 
reinforce what she was saying, that the money is there, it is just a 
question of saying that it is going to be available and thus everybody 
at the border knows what is going on and we will have a more efficient 
border.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank the Member for pointing out the 
fact that this is a phased-in process, and it is true that we will be 
doing it in a gradual way. But it gives people a sense of hope, a sense 
of knowledge, a sense of commitment that they and their businesses will 
be cared for as they move forward and as they try and increase commerce 
along the border, the good commerce that we all look forward to.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of border crossings are made for 
legitimate purposes. As we seek to secure our borders, we cannot afford 
to strangle them. With 22 percent of our Nation's exports and imports 
crossing our land borders, we need to have adequate systems in place to 
ensure that legitimate trade and travel are not unduly impaired. SENTRI 
is one such system that has been used successfully in my district of El 
Paso, Texas, in putting together dedicated commuter lanes. These lanes 
reduce waiting times at the border for prescreened, low-risk, frequent 
border crossers.
  The Filner amendment would provide needed funds to reduce the backlog 
of people applying to enroll in the SENTRI program. In my own district, 
we need some of these very same funds to replace equipment in our 
enrollment centers that often break down and other legitimate purposes 
to increase the legitimate flow of traffic back and forth between our 
borders. The sooner we can screen people out who pose no threat to our 
security, the more we will be able to concentrate our limited resources 
on those that may pose a threat to our national security.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting ``yes'' on the Filner amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Kentucky as well as the gentleman from Minnesota for the hard work that 
they have done on this bill under very difficult circumstances. Part of 
the problem is that there does not seem to be enough money to deal with 
the problems of domestic security at a time when this Nation appears to 
be under threat. At least that is what the administration would lead us 
to believe. Every other week we are going up to the orange alert code. 
Local governments around the Nation are responding to that. So if we 
are under threat, we need to be providing for the people at the local 
level who have to deal with that threat. This bill for all the care 
that has been put into fashioning it does not deal with that problem 
adequately. The problem seems to be that there is not enough money. I 
have heard people come to the floor here,

[[Page H5756]]

even today, and talk about the fact that this is the appropriations 
process, it is not the budget process. But nothing here happens in 
isolation. This is all of a piece. If you are going to cut taxes, if 
you are going to take money out of the Treasury, do not be surprised if 
a little while later you do not have enough money to pay for your 
domestic security programs. That is the situation that we are 
confronting in the context of this bill.
  Let me be even a bit more specific. Last year, we appropriated $2.9 
billion of grants to State and local governments to help them prepare 
for and defend against terrorist attacks.

                              {time}  1500

  Eight hundred million dollars or about 30 percent of that was 
directed to high-threat areas. Some people would argue that 30 percent 
is not enough to be directed toward high-threat areas. They ought to 
have more than that. But we are getting even less in this particular 
bill. Seventy percent in last year's appropriation went to other places 
across the country. That number under this piece of legislation goes up 
to 83 percent, and the effective cut for areas under high threat goes 
from $800 million to $500 million, and that has to be spread all across 
the country in areas that constitute areas of high threat. Secretary 
Ridge himself has said that the $800 million is not enough. Certainly 
the $500 million is not enough.
  We are not providing for the kind of national security that the 
administration talks about and Members of this Congress take this floor 
to talk about. It is one thing to express one's understanding of the 
need to deal with the problems of domestic threat. It is another to 
face up to those domestic threats and provide the resources so that the 
people out there on the firing line, the local government officials, 
the police, the firemen, emergency medical services personnel and 
others are able to contend with the problem when they express 
themselves and almost certainly they will.
  So for all the care that the chairman and the ranking member have put 
into this bill, it remains deficient overall in the amount of money 
that we are spending on national security. No fault of theirs. They 
have been restricted in the amount of money they have to work with. 
There is not enough money allocated by this Congress or by the 
administration to deal with this problem. There is a lot of money for 
tax cuts. There is $80 billion to fight the war in Iraq, but there is 
not enough money to provide for domestic security. And on top of that 
in the context of this bill, we are cutting back on the amount of money 
that is allocated to high-threat areas specifically. That is foolish 
and we need to correct it.
  We are beginning a process with this appropriation bill here today, 
and it is my hope that we will all work together constructively so that 
in the final analysis when we pass the final appropriation measure, we 
will have a bill that adequately provides funding for our domestic 
security needs and also takes into consideration those additional 
specific security needs that exist in areas of high threat across the 
country.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman that just spoke made some comments that I 
feel must be responded to. It is not really relevant to this amendment, 
but I will try to make it so, and that is whether or not we are 
providing enough funding for our State and local responders. I hear it 
every day. We hear it every day. Most people are uninformed or 
misinformed about how much money is going out there. In this bill we 
provide over $4 billion, and added to the moneys that we put in the 
2002 bill and the 2003 bill, we will have appropriated some $20.8 
billion just for State and local first responders. The money is going 
out in different sorts of grants. There are eight or 10 different sorts 
of grants, one of which goes to the high-threat urban areas such as New 
York, Washington, L.A., other places, and those go out at the 
discretion and in the decision of the Secretary.
  Last year, the current year 2003, we provided $800 million for just 
the high-threat/high-density urban areas. The administration in the 
2004 request did not request any funds in that account. We put $500 
million back in that account, and that is in the bill as we speak. 
However, in the other grant accounts we have increased the grants for 
State and local first responders by over $1 billion. We do not hear 
that talked about, but it is there. There is over $1 billion more in 
those grant programs this year and next year than this year, $203 
million above what we gave this year and $1 billion over what the 
President requested.
  So I want to ask where is the beef? Where is the beef?
  Those moneys are going out under competitive and discretionary grant 
programs to our States. Under this bill our States are required by law 
to give that money, 80 percent of it, to the locals within 60 days. The 
States have got to set up their own machinery for processing these 
applications. They have not done that yet. New York's application was 
almost tardy. We are just now getting the applications. And yet then we 
are saying you are not giving us the money. The money is there when you 
qualify and will be there during this year, but we have increased the 
amounts of money that go to State and local first responders $203 
million above what they have now and $1 billion more than was requested 
by the President.
  If the administration wants to submit a change in their budget 
request that changes these grants in some fashion, I am sure they will 
send us the supplement to their budget and we will give it due 
consideration. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure that Members 
understand the State and local first responder grant moneys are there 
more than last year, $1 billion more than the President requested. If 
the States will get their committees together and do their paperwork 
and apply for these moneys, they will be there, and if there are any 
delays in the pipeline, it is mainly because the States and localities 
have not applied for the money.
  So Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Counterterrorism Fund

       For necessary expenses, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, $20,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to reimburse any Federal agency for the costs of 
     providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute 
     unexpected threats or acts of terrorism, including payment of 
     rewards in connection with these activities: Provided, That 
     the Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations 
     15 days prior to the obligation of any amount of these funds 
     in accordance with section 503 of this Act.

                 Department-Wide Technology Investments

       For development and acquisition of information technology 
     equipment, software, services, and related activities for the 
     Department of Homeland Security, and for the costs of 
     conversion to narrowband communications, including the cost 
     for operation of the Land Mobile Radio legacy systems, 
     $206,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds appropriated shall be used to support 
     or supplement the appropriations provided for the United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
     system and the Automated Commercial Environment.

                    Office of the Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $58,118,000; of which 
     not to exceed $1,000,000 may be used for unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential nature, to be allocated under 
     the direction of the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Homeland Security: Provided, That in addition, $22,000,000 
     shall be derived by transfer from the Emergency Preparedness 
     and Response Disaster Relief Fund.

[[Page H5757]]

              TITLE II--BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

                     CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

                Bureau of Customs and Border Protection


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection for enforcement of laws relating to border 
     security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections 
     and regulatory activities related to plant and animal 
     imports, including planning, construction, and necessary 
     related activities of buildings and facilities, 
     $4,584,600,000; of which not to exceed $25,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses; of which not 
     to exceed $129,000,000 to remain available until September 
     30, 2005, shall be for inspection technology; of which such 
     sums as become available in the Customs User Fee Account, 
     except sums subject to section 13021(f)(3) of the 
     Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 
     U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)), shall be derived from that account; and of 
     which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be for payments or 
     advances arising out of contractual or reimbursable 
     agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies 
     while engaged in cooperative activities related to 
     immigration: Provided, That none of the funds available to 
     the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security may be 
     used to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount in excess 
     of $30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 1, 
     2004, except that the Commissioner of Customs and Border 
     Protection may exceed such limitation as necessary for 
     national security purposes and in cases of immigration 
     emergencies: Provided further, That uniforms may be purchased 
     without regard to the general purchase price limitation for 
     the current fiscal year: Provided further, That no funds 
     shall be available for the site acquisition, design, or 
     construction of any Border Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson 
     sector: Provided further, That the Border Patrol shall 
     relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least once 
     every 7 days in a manner designed to prevent persons subject 
     to inspection from predicting the location of any such 
     checkpoint.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection--salaries and expenses'', after the 
     aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $100,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Bureau of 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement--salaries and expenses'', 
     after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $200,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``TRANSPORTATION 
     SECURITY ADMINISTRATION--Aviation Security''--
       (1) after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased 
     by $150,000,000)''; and
       (2) insert before the period at the end the following:

     : Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this heading, $75,000,000 shall be available only for grants 
     to airports for perimeter security improvements, $50,000,000 
     shall be available only to screen cargo carried on passenger 
     aircraft, and $25,000,000 shall be available only to ensure 
     that overseas aircraft maintenance facilities that service 
     United States aircraft comply with United States security 
     standards
       In title II, in the item relating to ``TRANSPORTATION 
     SECURITY ADMINISTRATION--Maritime and Land Security'', after 
     each of the dollar amounts, insert ``(increased by 
     $400,000,000)''.
       In title IV, in the item relating to ``UNITED STATES COAST 
     GUARD--Operating Expenses''--
       (1) after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased 
     by $100,000,000)''; and
       (2) insert before the period at the end the following:

     : Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this heading, $100,000,000 shall be for implementation of all 
     of the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security 
     Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295)
       In title IV, in the item relating to ``INFORMATION ANALYSIS 
     AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION--Operating Expenses'', after 
     the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $50,000,000)''.
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1,000,000 for the tax year beginning in 
     2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of 
     the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 
     (Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced by 5.66 percent.

  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. 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.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to do six things. It 
would add $400 million for port facility security grants. The Coast 
Guard says that we need more than $4.5 billion over time to secure 
those operations. At the committee rate of only an additional $100 
million per year, it would take 20 years for us to get halfway to the 
task that is defined for us by the Coast Guard. I do not think that is 
fast enough. We would also add $100 million for the Coast Guard to 
implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which passed this 
Congress last November, which is aimed at strengthening our ability to 
analyze vessel threat information.
  We need simply look at the newspaper headlines yesterday about 
explosives bound for Sudan that were picked up by the Greek government, 
680 tons of explosives and 8,000 detonators in the ship Baltic Sky, 
which the inspectors described as being tantamount to the power of an 
atomic bomb. I think that makes eminently clear why we need to protect 
our own ports to a greater extent.
  Thirdly, we would add $100 million to increase the inspections of 
containers that are being shipped to this country. Right now we inspect 
only 2 percent. We would add 1,300 more inspectors. We are just 
scratching the surface in terms of what we need.
  Fourth, we would add $200 million to improve northern border 
security. That border is 5,500 miles long. It is highly vulnerable. I 
referred earlier to the some 60 aircraft that flew across that border 
unannounced and unflagged over the past year.
  We would then add $150 million for aviation security to secure 
airport perimeters and to strengthen our ability to screen cargo on 
passenger planes. It is kind of strange to provide screening for 
passengers if we do not provide it for cargo.
  Lastly, we would add $50 million for the Information Analysis and 
Infrastructure Protection Division in the new agency that is supposed 
to be the nerve center, the brain, of that agency in targeting what our 
biggest vulnerabilities are. We would pay for that by reducing the size 
of the tax cut that was passed by this Congress. We would reduce the 
size of the tax cut for taxpayers who earn more than $1 million a year. 
They are scheduled to get an $88,000 tax cut. We would reduce that tax 
cut to $83,000. So instead of getting $17.7 billion next year, they 
would only get $16.6 billion in tax reduction. I hardly think that is 
laying a scratch on them.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Budget Act was to try to force the 
Congress to recognize the choices and the trade-offs that are attendant 
to any budget. The problem is that the way the budget process has been 
used, we have a situation in which we have a huge disconnect between 
actions on the tax bill and the consequences that flow in terms of 
reduced services and reduced security for the country. So I would 
simply ask that we recognize that this amendment meets essential 
services. It provides essential services, and it also has the added 
feature of demonstrating that there is a price to pay for tax cuts 
primarily aimed at such high-income people, especially when it means 
and requires that by the time we finish our action on the tax side of 
the ledger, we have only table scraps left to provide needed services 
not just for homeland security for that matter but for education, 
health care, and a number of other crucial items.
  For those who say we are invading the jurisdiction of another 
committee, we did that at the expressed request of the House leadership 
just a few months ago on the omnibus appropriations bill. So this is 
nothing new, and I would urge support for the amendment, Mr. Chairman.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in part, an amendment to a 
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point 
of order? The gentleman from Wisconsin.

[[Page H5758]]

                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do and I would first raise a parliamentary 
inquiry. Could the Chair tell us what rules were waived by the 
Committee on Rules for consideration of the majority committee bill and 
its provisions?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will read the pertinent portion of House 
Resolution 293, the rule providing for consideration of this bill in 
Committee of the Whole, and that portion is: ``Points of order against 
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with section 501 of House 
Concurrent Resolution 95 and clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as 
follows: sections 514, 521, and 522.''

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Is it not true that the selective waiving of the rules as 
cited by the Chair make clear that the DeLauro amendment and the Sabo 
amendment, which were offered in committee, were not protected by the 
rule? That is the practical effect of that language, as I understand 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The sections specified in the rule, 514, 521, and 522, 
are not protected.
  Mr. OBEY. So my understanding is that that means that the DeLauro 
language on corporate expatriates and the Sabo amendment with respect 
to CAPPS were both precluded from being considered by the House.
  Would the Chair answer one other parliamentary inquiry, please. What 
rules are waived to enable my amendment to be offered on behalf of the 
minority?
  The CHAIRMAN. The rule does not speak to amendments to the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, then let me simply raise a further 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Because what I think the Chair just said is that the 
Committee on Rules, in contrast to the way it handled majority 
provisions, that the Committee on Rules did not make in order a waiver 
for our side of the aisle.
  But let me ask the Chair as a parliamentary inquiry, is it not 
correct that on the omnibus appropriations bill just a few months ago 
that we amended the Medicare Act not once, but in two separate areas, 
to provide a 6 percent increase in funding for providers under the 
Medicare Act, even though that was considered invading another 
committee's jurisdiction?
  Is it also not true that on that omnibus legislation the committee 
was allowed to increase payments under division N, section 401(b) of 
the Medicare Act for rural hospitals? Is it not true that we waived the 
rules to allow the U.S. Customs Service to conduct vehicle inspections 
on the Canadian side of the U.S.-Canada border? And is it not also true 
that during the tumultuous debate about what to do about the dilemma of 
the airlines, that we waived rules again to allow the committee to 
include in its appropriation bill the bailout for the airlines as well 
as the extension of unemployment benefits to those in that industry?
  The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair stated on June 26, 2002, the Chair cannot 
place issues into historical context; and, therefore, the gentleman has 
not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Well then, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I would 
urge the Chair to uphold my right to offer this amendment, because I 
cannot believe that the majority leadership would want to be so unfair 
as to waive provisions of our rules for the majority party's bill, but 
to not extend the same opportunity to those of us on the minority side, 
and to point out that I have just recited four instances where, just a 
few months ago, the majority leadership insisted that we provide these 
waivers for these nonappropriated purposes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do further Members wish to speak on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order that the amendment 
proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2(c) of rule 
XXI.
  The amendment, in pertinent part, proposes to increase budget 
authority to be offset by a change in certain tax statutes under the 
Internal Revenue Code.
  As the Chair previously ruled on September 8, 1999, and July 26, 
2001, an amendment to a general appropriation bill addressing tax-rate 
reduction under the Internal Revenue Code constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI; and, therefore, the point of 
order is sustained.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, on that I most reluctantly and respectfully 
move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the committee?
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 200, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                               AYES--222

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

                               NOES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch

[[Page H5759]]


     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baird
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Camp
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gutierrez
     Paul
     Smith (WA)
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1541

  Mr. PASCRELL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this paragraph? If not, 
the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for administrative expenses related to the 
     collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee, pursuant to Public 
     Law 103-182, and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of Public 
     Law 107-296, $3,000,000 to be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund and to be transferred to and merged 
     with this account.

                        Automation Modernization

       For expenses not otherwise provided for Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection automated systems, $493,727,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which not less than 
     $318,690,000 shall be for the development of the Automated 
     Commercial Environment: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be obligated for the 
     Automated Commercial Environment until the Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection prepares and submits to the Committees 
     on Appropriations a plan for expenditure that (1) meets the 
     capital planning and investment control review requirements 
     established by the Office of Management and Budget, including 
     OMB Circular A-11, part 3; (2) complies with the Bureau of 
     Customs and Border Protection's Enterprise Information 
     Systems Architecture; (3) complies with the acquisition 
     rules, requirements, guidelines, and systems acquisition 
     management practices of the Federal Government; (4) is 
     reviewed and approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection Investment Review Board, the Department of 
     Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; 
     and (5) is reviewed by the General Accounting Office: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading may be obligated for the Automated Commercial 
     Environment until such expenditure plan has been approved by 
     the Committees on Appropriations.

                  IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

             Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement for enforcement of immigration and 
     customs laws, detention and removals, investigations, 
     including planning, construction, and necessary related 
     activities of buildings and facilities, $2,030,000,000; of 
     which not to exceed $5,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be for conducting special operations pursuant 
     to Public Law 99-570 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which not to exceed 
     $15,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses; of which not less than $100,000 shall be for 
     promotion of public awareness of the child pornography 
     tipline; and of which not less than $200,000 shall be for 
     Project Alert: Provided, That none of the funds available to 
     the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement may be used 
     to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount in excess of 
     $30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 1, 2004, 
     except that the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement may exceed such 
     limitation as necessary for national security purposes and in 
     cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount of funds made available for activities to 
     enforce laws against forced child labor in fiscal year 2004, 
     not to exceed $5,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for support of such activities: Provided further, 
     That uniforms may be purchased without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year.

                       Federal Protective Service


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operations of the Federal Protective Service, $424,211,000 
     shall be transferred from the revenues and collections in the 
     General Services Administration, Federal Buildings Fund.

              Automation and Infrastructure Modernization

       For expenses not otherwise provided for Bureau of 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement automated systems, 
     $367,605,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not less than $350,000,000 shall be for the development of 
     the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
     Technology system (US VISIT): Provided, That none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated for US 
     VISIT until the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     prepares and submits to the Committees on Appropriations a 
     plan for expenditure that (1) meets the capital planning and 
     investment control review requirements established by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, including OMB Circular A-11, 
     part 3; (2) complies with the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement Enterprise Information Systems 
     Architecture; (3) complies with the acquisition rules, 
     requirements, guidelines, and systems acquisition management 
     practices of the Federal Government; (4) is reviewed and 
     approved by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     Investment Review Board, the Department of Homeland Security, 
     and the Office of Management and Budget; and (5) is reviewed 
     by the General Accounting Office: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated 
     for US VISIT until such expenditure plan has been approved by 
     the Committees on Appropriations.

                      Air and Marine Interdiction

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation, maintenance and procurement of marine vessels, 
     aircraft, and other related equipment of the Office of Air 
     and Marine Interdiction of the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement, including operational training and 
     mission-related travel, and rental payments for facilities 
     occupied by the air or marine interdiction and demand 
     reduction programs, the operations of which include the 
     following: conducting homeland security operations; 
     interdiction of narcotics and other illegal substances or 
     items; the provision of support to Department of Homeland 
     Security and other Federal, State, and local agencies in the 
     enforcement or administration of laws enforced by the Bureau 
     of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and, at the 
     discretion of the Under Secretary for Border and 
     Transportation Security, the provision of assistance to 
     Federal, State, and local agencies in other law enforcement 
     and emergency humanitarian efforts, $175,000,000, which shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That no aircraft 
     or other related equipment, with the exception of aircraft 
     that are one of a kind and have been identified as excess to 
     Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement requirements 
     and aircraft that have been damaged beyond repair, shall be 
     transferred to any other Federal agency, department, or 
     office outside of the Department of Homeland Security, during 
     fiscal year 2004 without the prior approval of the Committees 
     on Appropriations.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
       In title II, in the item ``IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 
     ENFORCEMENT--Air and Marine Interdiction'', after the dollar 
     amount insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item ``TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 
     ADMINISTRATION--Aviation Security''--
       (1) after the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced by 
     $10,000,000)''; and
       (2) after the fourth dollar mount insert ``(reduced by 
     $10,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item ``TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 
     ADMINISTRATION--Administration'', after the dollar amount 
     insert ``(reduced by $36,000,000)''.
       In title IV, in the item ``CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 
     SERVICES--Operating Expenses'', after the dollar amount 
     insert ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
       In title IV, in the item ``UNITED STATES COAST GUARD--
     Operating Expenses'', after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $35,000,000)''.
       In title IV, in the item ``UNITED STATES COAST GUARD--
     Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements''--
       (1) after the first dollar amount insert ``(increased by 
     $75,000,000)''; and
       (2) after the sixth dollar amount insert ``(increased by 
     $75,000,000)''.

[[Page H5760]]

       In title IV, in the item ``SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY--
     Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations'', after 
     the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $47,000,000)''.

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
continues my campaign and the campaign of many others to ensure that 
our maritime security efforts have as much resources available to 
defend against the potential disaster of an attack at one or more of 
our ports. My amendment would increase funding for the Coast Guard by 
$110 million; $35 million would go to fund the congressionally mandated 
review and approval of approximately 10,000 facilities and vessel 
security plans that owners and operators must submit to the Coast Guard 
next year; and $75 million to help get the critically needed Deep Water 
Acquisition Program back on track.
  My amendment would provide roughly half of what has been requested 
for support by the Coast Guard for these programs.

                              {time}  1545

  Tomorrow in the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
session, we will be marking up the 2004 Coast Guard Authorization Act, 
which provides the funding for these important programs at the level 
requested and supported by the Coast Guard.
  I would add that over 85 Members of the House have sent the 
appropriators a letter in support of our authorized level of funding.
  At a May 22 hearing before my subcommittee, the commandant of the 
Coast Guard explained that the Coast Guard would need an additional $70 
million to fund 150 full-time personnel to review and approve of the 
Vessel and Facility Security Plans mandated by the MTSA. If these plans 
are not reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard within a year of its 
submission, the owners will not be allowed to operate their vessels in 
U.S. waters, and noncompliant port facilities would be shut down.
  With 95 percent of our Nation's trade entering and leaving our ports, 
this will have a chilling effect on our economy. Moreover, without 
additional funding to meet this congressionally imposed mandate, the 
Coast Guard will have to divert precious resources and personnel from 
other traditional missions, including search and rescue, drug 
interdiction, and fisheries enforcement. My amendment would provide $35 
million for this purpose, half of what is needed.
  At a June 3 hearing before my subcommittee, the commandant announced 
his support for the $702 million in funding for Deepwater. This level 
of funding represents what is needed to counteract 3 years of 
underfunding and would get the program back on track.
  The Coast Guard operates the second oldest naval fleet in the world, 
and some assets have been commissioned since World War II. Nearly half 
of the 110-foot Patrol Boat Fleet is in immediate need of repair for 
structural deterioration and has cost over 6 months of lost patrol days 
on the west coast. On average, the High Endurance Cutter Fleet is 
having a fire in their main engineering spaces on every patrol, and the 
fleet's main search and rescue helicopter is equipped with radar 
designed and installed nearly 20 years ago. Therefore, the successful 
and timely implementation of Deepwater would ensure that the Coast 
Guard would have the modern assets necessary to respond to any threats 
necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the very difficult decision-making process 
that confronted the appropriators in drafting this bill. I commend the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) for their work, and at this point I would indicate my 
willingness to withdraw my amendment if the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) would be willing to enter into a colloquy with me.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, will the chairman enter into a colloquy 
with me on this subject?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I certainly will.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I am willing to withdraw 
my amendment if the gentleman agrees to work with me as the bill moves 
forward to increase funding for the Deepwater program and provide 
additional funding for the review and approval of the Vessel and 
Facility Security Plans.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for his advocacy on 
behalf of the Coast Guard, and he has been a champion at that for his 
entire career in the Congress.
  While I cannot support his amendment, I do recognize the need to 
provide additional funding for Deepwater and for the administrative 
costs associated with the review and approval of the congressionally 
mandated facility and vessels security plans. I look forward to 
continuing to work with the gentleman from New Jersey to ensure 
adequate resources are made for these priorities in fiscal 2004.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
on this issue and recognize the very difficult decision-making process 
he was confronted with in development of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, our first responsibility set 
forth in the preamble to the Constitution is to provide for the common 
defense. In our time, the common defense means protecting our homeland 
from terrorists, as well as from traditional military threats to our 
interests at home and abroad.
  The consideration of the first-ever appropriations bill for the 
Department of Homeland Security could have been a historic opportunity 
to demonstrate our commitment to the common defense by addressing some 
of the most glaring deficiencies in our Nation's security. Sadly, it is 
yet another missed opportunity.
  The Republican's Homeland Security bill does not provide the 
resources necessary to do the job. The Republican bill does not meet 
the broad needs of our ports, our borders, our air transportation 
system, and other critical parts of our infrastructure.
  In determining the Nation's priorities, the Republican majority has 
chosen to cut taxes for those who need it least, while shortchanging 
the homeland security needs of everyday Americans. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Committee on Appropriations ranking member, 
showed great leadership with an amendment to provide for America's 
security, to provide for the common defense, to protect the homeland.
  The amendment would have provided an additional $1 billion to improve 
homeland security by adding $500 million to port security, everyone 
recognizes that is the minimum figure that is needed to protect our 
ports; $100 million to assist in the development of an automated vessel 
tracking system; $200 million to pay either for a year-round air and 
marine interdiction program at our northern border or to increase to 
6,900 the number of agents patrolling the northern border by the end of 
fiscal year 2004; $150 million in security grants to airports and 
overseas maintenance facilities; and, finally, $50 million for 
vulnerable assessments at critical infrastructure locations.
  Where would this $1 billion come from? The Obey amendment would be 
paid for by rolling back the tax cut for millionaires, that is, people 
making $1 million per year. People making $1 million a year or more 
would have their tax cut cut from $88,326 to $83,326. For that $5,000, 
for the 200,000 people making over $1 million a year, by reducing their 
tax cut from $88,000 to $83,000, America can be much safer.
  What would my colleagues choose, to protect the American people or to 
give $5,000 more to people making $1 million a year or more?
  Mr. Chairman, success in both the war on terrorism and the effort to 
better protect our Nation and its people will require a sustained 
effort and a resolve lasting many years. This bill should have been a 
testament to that resolve; but sadly, it is not. We need to act now to 
protect the American people.

[[Page H5761]]

  Recent history suggests that our security could be tested anytime and 
any place. We know what our exposure is, what our vulnerabilities are. 
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) addressed them in his 
amendment. We must take every step to be ready. We have that 
responsibility.
  Providing for the common defense is enshrined in our Constitution as 
one of our highest responsibilities. Its importance as a national 
priority is not reflected in this bill.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his 
leadership, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for his as well, 
and it is with the highest regard for the chairman of the subcommittee 
who has served in this House with great dignity that I regret opposing 
what has been put forth by the Republican leadership on the floor 
today. It again misses an opportunity for the American people.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky. I would like to address the 
issue of how our national emergency preparedness and response plan 
addresses older Americans, the disabled, and others with special needs.
  Our experience with the horrible attacks of September 11, 2001, 
exposed gaps in our response plan as many elderly and disabled people 
living near the World Trade Center were trapped for days before 
receiving assistance. Successive evaluations have identified particular 
problems, including lack of coordination in city-wide community 
services, lack of a system to identify and locate older and disabled 
people, and lack of access to necessary public information both before 
and after an emergency.
  I believe this issue is of great importance in the event of a future 
terrorist attack and I look forward to working with the gentleman in 
addressing this great need.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
distinguished gentleman for his very thoughtful comments and agree that 
the needs of older Americans and those with special needs should be 
addressed. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this 
important issue.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the 
majority and the minority members and the appropriations staff for 
their hard work on this first homeland security appropriations bill. I 
realize that this has been a formidable task.
  Never the less, I am concerned that we have not given enough debate 
to issues raised by our state and local government officials and our 
local first responders.
  For instance, fire fighters in Kansas City have told me that we must 
develop and fund an infrastructure to communicate effectively with 
agencies in the same community as well as surrounding communities 
during times of crisis.
  Moreover, our local public health officials must have the necessary 
resources to be adequately prepared to cope with emergencies, 
particularly bioterroist attacks.
  As the ranking member of the subcommittee on intelligence and 
counterterrorism of the select committee on homeland security, I 
question the Department of Homeland Security's ability to provide 
accurate and timely intelligence assessments, including bioterrorism 
threats to this country with the limited resources provided in H.R. 
2555.
  I thank the chair for the opportunity to address these important 
issues, and hope that in conference the additional funds called for by 
the ranking member, Mr. Obey (the gentleman from Wisconsin) will be 
included.
  The American people deserve such protection. Our first responders 
deserve such resources to assure the protection of the people they 
serve.

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

                 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Aviation Security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing civil aviation security 
     services pursuant to Public Law 107-71, $3,679,200,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $3,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided, That of such total amount, not to exceed 
     $1,672,700,000 shall be for passenger screening activities; 
     not to exceed $1,284,800,000 shall be for baggage screening 
     activities; and not to exceed $721,700,000 shall be for 
     airport support and enforcement presence: Provided further, 
     That security service fees authorized under section 44940 of 
     title 49, United States Code, shall be credited to this 
     appropriation as offsetting collections and used for 
     providing civil aviation security services authorized by that 
     section: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     from the General Fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar 
     basis as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2004, so as to result in a final fiscal year 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more 
     than $1,609,200,000: Provided further, That any security 
     service fees collected in excess of the amount appropriated 
     under this heading shall be treated as offsetting collections 
     in fiscal year 2005: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     in this Act shall be used to recruit or hire personnel into 
     the Transportation Security Administration which would cause 
     the agency to exceed a staffing level of 45,000 full-time 
     equivalent screeners: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount provided herein, $235,000,000 shall be available only 
     for physical modification of commercial service airports for 
     the purpose of installing checked baggage explosive detection 
     systems and $100,000,000 shall be available only for 
     procurement of checked baggage explosive detection systems.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Terry

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Terry:
       Page 11, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 16, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple in the sense that 
what it does is it provides 20 million additional dollars for our first 
responders, and it takes it from a flush, although well-improved, 
Transportation Security Agency.
  I want to start off by complimenting the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee. Most of the time when an 
amendment is offered, it is because that person has disagreed 
philosophically with the direction of that particular appropriation. I 
am here to compliment the chairman and say that I agree with his 
priorities, Mr. Chairman, and two of those priorities that he has 
provided are an extra $1 billion of funding for our first responders 
above the President's request. He has also decreased to bring down the 
number of TSA agents in our airports, and I greatly appreciate both of 
those.
  My goal here today is to improve on what the gentleman has already 
done, Mr. Chairman. I would like us to take an even bigger step in 
helping our first responders.
  When we look at our homeland security today, we rely a great deal on 
our fire, police and emergency services; and while we talk about a new 
Homeland Security Department and funding that Department, most of the 
people receive a vision of a top-down system that comes from 
Washington, D.C., down to the local levels. But the reality is when an 
emergency occurs, when a terrorist attack occurs, whether it is in 
Oklahoma City or Omaha or New York City or Washington, D.C., the first 
people on the scene, to take control of the scene, to rescue those that 
have been injured or killed in the security area are our first 
responders.

                              {time}  1600

  I do not think we can do enough to provide them the proper training 
and the proper equipment. I have talked to our police officers, who 
call themselves blue canaries, because they know that when an emergency 
occurs, when they run into those buildings to secure the areas, they 
say they know it is biological or chemical or deadly when they keel 
over. Well, I think when we have a national security policy, a homeland 
security policy that relies on them, I would like to provide them 
additional dollars.
  Now, why the TSA? I think most of us that go through airports can 
tell of personal examples with what appears

[[Page H5762]]

to be a very flush budget in the respect of seeing the number of white 
shirts with patches standing around. In fact, at my airport in Eppley, 
just a few months ago, there was an extremely long line, as there was 
on Monday morning, but they only had one of the stations open. And I 
asked the person why there was only one security station open when 
there were as many as 10 twelve white shirts standing around, and I was 
told, quote-unquote, they are on break. I called our new security 
administrator for Eppley and he told me it was broken down. Now, the 
people on the scene had a different opinion. But that is just one 
example.
  Unfortunately, over the last few months what we have also seen is not 
only the vast number of employees standing around but the vast number 
of passengers standing in extremely long passenger lines. Last week, at 
Reagan National, it literally went out the door. It literally went out 
the door, yet there were many employees there working. How does that 
happen, when there is more employees than there were before and the 
lines are two or three times longer? We are having record numbers of 
people standing in lines and a number of complaints coming into our 
office about our own airport.
  Now, I go through a lot of airports, and I have talked, Mr. Chairman, 
to several people in charge of these airports. I get really extremely 
harsh critique of TSA from airport administrators. In fact, one told me 
that he wanted to find out the background of the security administrator 
appointed to their airport to see if this person had any experience 
with civil airports. TSA denied the request, so a Freedom of 
Information Act was filed and that was denied on PATRIOT Act grounds. 
So we do not even know if the people being appointed have any 
experience in providing security.
  At least in Omaha, Nebraska, I know there were two or three people 
that would have been grade-A-plus in security, yet they were denied for 
someone we do not even know the background of. And how many of us have 
similar experiences to tell?
  So, Mr. Chairman, I understand your position and I respect it, but I 
stand by my amendment to help our first responders.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, very reluctantly rise to 
oppose this amendment. The gentleman is a good Member, and he has 
expressed heartfelt thoughts here. And, goodness knows, I have 
expressed very serious and long-standing reservations about the number 
of screeners that TSA has deployed in airports throughout the country. 
But in the bill before us we already reduce the number of screeners by 
another 4,600 in fiscal 2004, and that is on top of the 6,000 screeners 
that will be laid off between now and September of this year. That 
would be a reduction from current levels, roughly, of some 10,600 less 
than we have now.
  In the 2002 bill, when it was in Transportation, we capped the number 
of screeners at 45,000. This cut the gentleman would make would take us 
well below that cap. This further reduction of $20 million from the 
screener fund would require them to lay off another 500 to 1,000 
screeners on top of what I just mentioned. That would take us well 
below the 45,000 level that we had set now for the 2 or 3 years in the 
Congress as the maximum level at TSA.
  The monies the gentleman would take from TSA he would give to the 
first responders, and heavens knows we want to give them all we can, 
but in this bill, as the gentleman mentioned, we are already $1 billion 
for first responders above what the President requested, and some $200 
million plus above what the current level of spending for first 
responders is. So I just think that it would be unwise to adopt this 
amendment, as much as I sympathize with the gentleman's philosophy in 
offering it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would join the chairman in opposing the 
amendment. The committee and the chairman have been very tough task 
masters of TSA when it comes to the number of screeners. We have been 
urging them for a long time to use more part-time people and to make 
more efficient use of their personnel. On the other hand, if we get too 
harsh, there may be imbalance around the country in terms of where 
there are vacancies and where there are an overabundance. So if we get 
too tough, we can be very counterproductive.
  I agree with the chairman that first responder money is important, 
but the committee has been very disciplined in dealing with TSA, and I 
would join the chairman in opposing this additional cut.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman. I would rather that we let the TSA absorb these cuts that we 
already have in place, which will cut 10,600 screeners by the end of 
2004. Let us do that before we take further steps. We can assess it at 
that time. If we still have a problem, I would be supportive of the 
gentleman's amendment. But for the moment, I think we have done just 
about enough.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was intending to offer an amendment to this title of 
the bill, but the amendment is to increase the appropriation in the 
bill by $5 billion for the purpose of stationing American inspectors in 
every foreign port from where ships leave for the United States in 
order to inspect every container before it is put on a ship bound for 
the United States. Unfortunately, I could not find a $5 billion offset 
in this bill. What I wanted to do, obviously, was to reduce the tax 
cuts, the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts, by 
$5 billion to offset this. But the rules of the House do not permit 
that, so my hands are tied.
  Let me address for a moment the necessity of this amendment, if not 
in this bill then elsewhere. The greatest danger this Nation faces, 
which we are not addressing in any real shape or form, is that some 
foreign terrorist group, al-Qaeda, whoever, or some rogue nation, will 
get hold of a nuclear bomb and attack the United States. We are 
spending about $100 billion on an anti-ballistic missile system 
ostensibly to meet that threat. But think about it a minute. The leader 
of any rogue nation who had a few atomic bombs and wanted to attack the 
United States would not put them on a missile, because a missile has a 
return address. We would know from where the missile came, if God 
forbid someone attacked American cities. That leader would know that if 
he launched nuclear-tipped missiles at American cities, his country 
would cease to exist, along with his regime and him, would cease to 
exist a half-hour later. So he would not put the atomic bombs on a 
missile, he would put them in a ship.
  Mr. Chairman, six million shipping containers come into this country 
per year. We inspect less than 2 percent of them. Ninety-eight percent 
of those six million containers, for all we know, have atomic bombs in 
them. It does not do any good to inspect them in Newark or New York or 
Los Angeles where they night explode. I know Secretary Ridge and others 
are saying we are going to set aside a few hundred million dollars and 
send some inspectors to foreign ports to look at some high-risk 
containers. High risk? Well, if we look at the high-risk containers, 
the bombs will be in the low-risk containers, or at least those that 
used to be low risk.
  Mr. Chairman, the catastrophe that could be caused from one atomic 
bomb in an American city would make 9/11 look like child's play. That 
catastrophe would cost half a million lives immediately, probably 
trillions, trillions in economic damage. We cannot afford to risk one 
nuclear explosion in an American city. President Bush said, when he was 
trying to motivate a war with Iraq, that we could not wait for the 
mushroom cloud. Well, I am not so sure the facts justified that 
reference with respect to Iraq, but they most certainly justify that 
reference with respect to six million shipping containers coming into 
this country with God knows what inside.
  So, Mr. Chairman, my amendment that I would have offered, if the 
majority did not prevent me from offering this amendment, would have 
appropriated $5 billion, which is little

[[Page H5763]]

enough for this purpose, and would have sufficed to enable an American 
inspection team to see to it that no container, not one container, is 
put on any ship bound for the United States in a foreign port until 
that container is searched and sealed and certified by an American 
inspection team in the foreign port to say there is no weapon of mass 
destruction on board that.
  Mr. Chairman, if we do not do this, during the war that we are 
engaged in now and maybe for the next 10, 20, 30, or 40 years with the 
terrorists, then we ought to have our collective heads examined. Any 
American city could be destroyed, millions of lives lost by one atomic 
bomb in any container in any ship. We cannot afford not to spend the 
money to search and inspect every single container, whether our 
intelligence people think it is a high-risk or a low-risk container, 
every container in a foreign port with an American inspection team to 
make sure there is no weapon of mass destruction on board that 
container.
  For $5 billion, Mr. Chairman, we could do that. Five billion dollars 
a year. Compare that to trillions of dollars in tax cuts that we have 
passed in these last 2 years. Where does the risk lie for the American 
people? I would urge, and I would challenge the Bush administration to 
make the $5 billion a year available and to institute this and to say 
to foreign countries that no container gets put on a ship in their port 
without being inspected first by an American inspection team.
  And, by the way, if they did not want an American inspection team in 
their ports, that is fine, they are sovereign, but they cannot ship 
anything to the United States. We must hermetically seal this country 
from nuclear bombs possibly contained in ships, and this is the only 
way to do it. The failure of this Congress and of the administration to 
deal with this subject seriously is one that I hope will not result in 
cataclysmic catastrophe for the American people.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I could not let the gentleman's statement go 
unanswered. We cannot talk in this forum about all that we are doing at 
our ports in searching container freight and other freight. I would be 
happy to talk to any Member privately about it, but we cannot talk 
about all that we are doing in a public forum because it is sensitive 
information.
  However, the Customs and Border Protection Agency tells me that they 
are inspecting 100 percent of all high-risk cargo based on collecting 
advanced information such as manifests, intelligence, and targeting 
systems. I have had the experience of going to some of those ports 
myself and watching the operation. Watching as we use the equipment on 
these containers that we do search and then the ones that we physically 
search.
  The 2003 spending bill had monies in it for a thing called the 
Container Security Initiative, essentially operating at about 20 
megaports and several smaller ports all over the world. The idea is to 
push the perimeter of defense off of our shores. We all know if a bad 
container gets to us, it is too late. If you catch it only when it 
comes to your port, it is too late. So we have moved offshore to 20 
megaports now, places like Rotterdam, Singapore, and the like, and 
inspecting and searching and securing containers before they ever sail 
for America.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $62 million to expand that to 30 
megaports around the world and especially those in very sensitive parts 
of the world.
  Now we already have in place $165 million from the wartime 
supplemental that we passed for additional inspectors, agents, 
technology and $129 million for additional inspection technology in 
this bill. Those monies will be used to push the border out to these 30 
foreign seaports through the Container Security Initiative, but there 
is also $12 million for government-private partnerships to tighten 
security in private facilities and $3 million to continue what is 
called the Operation Safe Commerce to make smart containers and our 
supply chain even more secure.
  I want Members to know that we are focusing exactly on what the 
gentleman has talked about, and that is container freight. There are 
more than 17 million containers a year, there is 17 million a year; 7 
million comes by sea, 12 million by land across our borders with Mexico 
and Canada. It is a huge problem to deal with.
  However, if we stop and search physically every single container 
regardless of whether or not it looks to be suspicious for some reason, 
we would absolutely shut down commerce in the world. So much of our 
commerce depends on the container freight business. I think we are 
going about it the sensible way. I am convinced after having visited 
several ports, spending a lot of time with the folks that are doing 
this, looking at the machinery and the results and how they go about 
doing it, that we are doing as good as we can in the span of time that 
we have had. Obviously it is going to get better. We are going to keep 
pushing at it. That is the reason we have loaded this bill down with 
money for that very purpose. I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
issue to us so we can discuss it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to pick up where the last two speakers spoke, 
and that is the question of port security and what we know or do not 
know about the 20 million containers that come across America's borders 
every year, come by truck and train traffic, and the rest through 
ports.
  I have to say that I appreciate that the committee is doing a lot. 
The question is when will the committee be done doing its work, and 
when will the Nation say that it knows enough about the containers 
coming into its ports. I am not sure that we can inspect every port, 
but what is very clear is the amount of information that we have to 
have about these containers from the point of origin to the time that 
they embark for the United States is incomplete. Even the effort to go 
into the megaports, which I think is important since some 80 percent of 
the commerce is shipped through those ports, that does not tell us, 
that does not give us the kind of information about the containers even 
coming to the megaports. That is what has to be established. A system, 
a credible system has to be established so those individuals 
responsible for the security of this Nation and the movement of those 
containers across the borders of this Nation are able to make an 
assessment as to the security of this Nation posed by those individual 
containers.
  We are not going to be able to inspect every one of them because 
commerce is not going to allow us to do that. It would break down the 
system. But we can require a great deal more information about the 
contents of that container, the sealing of that container, the movement 
of that container, through electronic locks, through GPS systems, so we 
can start to trace that. Then we can make our decision upon risk. But 
by the time that container gets into the port of Hamburg or Hong Kong 
or Long Beach or Oakland, California, it is too late. If one of these 
container goes up with a dirty bomb, you will shut down the globalized 
container system in this world because we then will have to inspect 
every container. That is too late. That is far too late.
  The terrorist does not just have to strike. As we saw, terrorists now 
understand that beyond the initial act are the economic consequences. 
They now see what that means. But if they are going to come to the 
United States and they want to do our people harm, they put in a 
nuclear device, they put in a dirty bomb, inspecting it in the Port of 
New York, the Port of Long Beach or the Port of Oakland is far too 
late. It does not matter if it goes up on the ship once it comes 
through the Golden Gate, if it goes up on the port property, or it goes 
up on the railroad train, that is too late. Of those, we are inspecting 
2-4 percent of the containers.
  At some point we have to establish a deadline so that people will 
know, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) said, if they want to 
engage in commerce in the United States, an inspection system has to be 
in place going back to the point of origin to follow that container all 
of the way.
  We did this in the oil spill liability provisions after the Exxon 
Valdez. We said in 25 years if you want to continue to have access and 
ship petroleum products to the United States, you will do it in double-
hulled ships. We should

[[Page H5764]]

be saying to the shippers, to international commerce, by 2004 or 2005 
if you want to continue to have access, you have to provide for this 
monitoring of cargo, for the transparency of the system and the 
monitoring of the ships.
  We have some 40,000 ships roaming around the world with containers on 
them. This is the kind of system that the American public is entitled 
to, and why so. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) pointed 
out, many of the experts which have been briefing Congress since 
September 11, 2001, have been telling us we are more likely to have a 
dirty bomb come into this country by way of container than we will ever 
have the risk of it coming in by way of missile. That is the threat to 
the home front. That is the major threat.
  What we see here, while we are taking these incremental steps and I 
applaud many of them, we do not have a plan for deciding at what point 
this is going to be a secure system. We have to start putting deadlines 
on the transparency of this system, on the security of this system, and 
access to the American markets. That is how we are going to get unified 
system.
  The gentleman from New York is right. The Container Security 
Initiative, the Operation Safe Commerce, the Customs Trade Partnership 
Against Terrorism are all important initiatives, but they are taking 
too long. They are taking too long. What is the price of security? What 
is the price of the home front? What is the price of a secure port 
system and a secure transportation system? Those are the questions we 
have to start asking ourselves, not whether we have put in another $100 
million or $200 million; is the system secure. Right now we cannot tell 
the American public that in the foreseeable future that our system is 
secure.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to this paragraph?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Federal Air Marshals

       For necessary expenses of the Federal air marshals, 
     $634,600,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Maritime and Land Security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to maritime and land transportation 
     security grants and services pursuant to Public Law 107-71, 
     $231,700,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of such amount, $100,000,000 shall be available only to 
     make port security grants, which shall be distributed under 
     the same terms and conditions as provided for under Public 
     Law 107-117.

                              Intelligence

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to transportation security 
     intelligence activities, $13,700,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                        Research and Development

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration for research and development related to 
     transportation security, $125,700,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                             Administration

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration for administrative activities, including 
     headquarters and field support, training, and information 
     technology, $487,100,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2005.

                FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For the necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center, $136,629,000, of which $26,635,000 shall be 
     for material and support costs of Federal law enforcement 
     basic training and 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 notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Center 
     is authorized to expend appropriations for the purchase of 
     police-type pursuit vehicles without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation; student athletic and related 
     recreational activities; conducting and participating in 
     firearms matches and the presentation of awards for such 
     matches; public awareness and enhancing community support of 
     law enforcement training, including the advertisement and 
     marketing of available law enforcement training programs; 
     room and board for student interns; short-term medical 
     services for students undergoing training at Center training 
     facilities; travel expenses of non-Federal personnel 
     attending course development meetings; services authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; support of 
     Federal law enforcement accreditation; and a flat monthly 
     reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal cell 
     phones for official duties: Provided further, That (1) funds 
     appropriated to this account may be used at the discretion of 
     the Center's Director to train United States Postal Service 
     law enforcement personnel, State and local law enforcement 
     personnel, foreign law enforcement personnel, and private 
     security personnel; (2) with the exception of private 
     security personnel, the Center's Director is authorized to 
     fully fund the cost of this training, including the cost of 
     non-Federal travel, or to seek full or partial reimbursement 
     for this training; and (3) such reimbursements shall be 
     deposited in this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     Center is authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from agencies receiving training at 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: Provided further, 
     That the Center is authorized to accept and use gifts of 
     property, real and personnel, and to accept services, for 
     authorized purposes: Provided further, That the Center is 
     authorized to harvest timber and use the proceeds from timber 
     sales to supplement the Center's forest management and 
     environmental programs: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, students 
     attending training at any Center site shall reside in on-
     center or center-provided housing, to the extent available 
     and in accordance with Center policy.

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

       For expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center, for acquisition of necessary additional real property 
     and facilities, and for ongoing maintenance, facility 
     improvements, and related expenses, $32,323,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center is authorized to accept 
     reimbursement to this appropriation from government agencies 
     requesting the construction of special use facilities on 
     training centers operated by the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, all facilities shall remain under the 
     control of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which 
     shall be responsible for scheduling, use, maintenance, and 
     support.

                    OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS

                         Domestic Preparedness

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     activities of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, as 
     authorized by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-296) and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56), 
     $3,503,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the amount provided under this heading--
       (1) $1,900,000,000 shall be for basic formula grants;
       (2) $500,000,000 shall be for grants to State and local law 
     enforcement for terrorism prevention activities;
       (3) $200,000,000 shall be for critical infrastructure 
     grants;
       (4) $500,000,000 shall be for discretionary grants for use 
     in high-density urban areas and high-threat areas; and
       (5) $35,000,000 shall be for grants for Centers for 
     Emergency Preparedness:

     Provided further, That the application for grants 
     appropriated in subsections (1), (2), and (3) under this 
     heading shall be made available to States within 30 days of 
     enactment of this Act; States shall submit applications 
     within 30 days of the grant announcement; and the Office for 
     Domestic Preparedness shall act on each application within 15 
     days of receipt: Provided further, That 80 percent of the 
     funds appropriated in subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) 
     under this heading to any State shall be allocated by the 
     State to units of local governments and shall be distributed 
     by the State within 60 days of the receipt of funds: Provided 
     further, That section 1014(c)(3) of Public Law 107-56 shall 
     not apply to funds appropriated in subsections (4) and (5) 
     under this heading: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be used for 
     construction or renovation of facilities: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated in subsections (3) and (4) under this 
     heading shall be available for operational costs, including 
     personnel overtime as needed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       In title II, in the item ``OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC 
     PREPAREDNESS--Domestic Preparedness'', in paragraph (4) after 
     the dollar amount insert ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.
       In title III, in the item ``Disaster Relief (including 
     transfer of funds)'', after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $300,000,000)''.

  Mrs. MALONEY (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 gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) reserves a 
point of order.

[[Page H5765]]

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the al Qaeda has not gone away, and we 
know al Qaeda does not choose its targets at random, it chooses targets 
to inflict the greatest numbers of casualties, to do the greatest 
damage economically, and to get the most publicity. Just last week, we 
were reminded that New York is still a target when the Attorney General 
announced that an al Qaeda terrorist was targeting the Brooklyn Bridge. 
He was deterred from attacking the bridge by the efforts of the New 
York Police Department.
  This is just one example of how since 9/11 a large share of the 
burden of providing for the national defense has fallen on our cities. 
In Congress we have provided some funds to help. We even sent part of 
the money to where the need is. In fiscal year 2003, we provided $2.9 
billion for grants to State and local governments to help them prepare 
for and defend against terrorist attacks. We even said that $800 
million of that should be directed to where the threat is greatest. 
That is about 30 percent. The rest of the fund went out under a formula 
that is entirely unrelated to where the terror threat is.
  Under this bill as it is currently drafted for the next fiscal year, 
that 70 percent will increase to nearly 83 percent. Our effort to 
protect the most likely targets of terrorism is moving backwards. We 
are cutting the funds to the Nation's most threatened cities by almost 
40 percent, by $300 million, from $800 million to $500 million, and we 
are increasing the percentage that will go under the formula that is 
unrelated to potential threat, a formula that Secretary Ridge has 
repeatedly said is inappropriate and must be changed.
  This formula sends the money where the threat is not. Just yesterday 
Secretary Ridge himself said of the high threat money and I quote, ``I 
would like to see the number significantly higher than $500 million.'' 
He went on to say, ``At the end of the day, I do believe that there are 
some communities and regions that need more money.''
  My amendment will simply follow Secretary Ridge's advice and restore 
funding for high-threat cities. I understand that this approach is 
subject to a point of order. I originally had wanted to shift money 
from another account, but the fact is this bill severely underfunds our 
security needs. Resources are too scarce to shift between accounts, but 
our cities need more funding. New York City spent more than $200 
million over the last year on counterterrorism. The grants so far 
amount to $220 million for New York, but very little of that can offset 
the personnel costs that the city has identified at more than $900 
million.
  The assistance provided after the September 11 attacks paid for 
cleanup and replacement of equipment. It did not cover the security 
costs. This is not just an issue for New York and Washington, but it is 
a high-priority issue for many cities, including L.A., Chicago, San 
Francisco, New Orleans, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Houston and any city 
with a port or a mass transit system.
  Mr. Chairman, it is our responsibility to appropriate the funds 
needed to protect the American people and this bill falls dangerously 
short. Respecting the request of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney), who has worked very hard in a bipartisan way for New York 
City and State, I am withdrawing my amendment, also at the request of 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and I appreciate the 
commitment from the New York delegation, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) along with help from the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) to restore this in conference.

                              {time}  1630

  I appreciate very much the leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to quote Secretary of Homeland 
Security Ridge from an Associated Press article yesterday. This is what 
he said:
  ``At the end of the day, ladies and gentlemen, if you take a look at 
the population, the density of population, the critical infrastructure 
and the threat, there's one city that no matter how you move those 
factors around or weigh those factors, there's one city at the top of 
the list and it's New York City.''
  I want to associate myself with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney), the things that she said. We will have other people from the 
New York delegation speaking about this as well, because we feel very, 
very strongly about getting the money for homeland security for New 
York City which is obviously, as Secretary Ridge said, the number one 
threat.
  In fiscal year 2003, we provided $2.9 billion for grants to State and 
local governments to help them prepare for and defend against terrorist 
attacks. $800 million, or about 30 percent of that, was directed to 
high-threat areas. The rest of the fund went out under a formula that 
is entirely unrelated to where the terror threat is. Under this bill, 
as it is currently drafted for the next fiscal year, the 70 percent 
that is not related to high-threat areas will increase to nearly 83 
percent. I believe that that is wrong.
  Just last week a plot was uncovered, as my colleague said, to blow up 
the Brooklyn Bridge. Our intelligence agencies continue to say that New 
York remains a top target for terrorists and common sense would tell 
anybody the same thing. New York has been hit twice by radical 
terrorists. Thousands have died. We continue to rebuild; but to better 
ensure our safety and the safety of the world's financial capital, we 
need to better spend Federal tax dollars. When New York is hit by 
attacks, all Americans are hurt. The economic impact is all over the 
country. People in Montana, Oklahoma and Oregon, it affects everyone in 
this country when New York is hit by attacks.
  I also had intended to offer an amendment to move $500 million from 
the State grant program to the high-threat program. I will not do that 
because I understand that there are needs across the country for 
assistance. Thus, it is obvious that this bill is not adequate to our 
needs as a Nation. I hope that we can somehow get around to the fact 
that we desperately need more money for high-threat areas. I would hope 
that in the negotiations between us and the other body that we would 
rectify this.
  Why is this bill underfunded in my opinion? The answer is simple 
math. We have cut our revenues by trillions of dollars to pay for tax 
cuts. There is a trade-off, I believe, tax cuts or security. We believe 
that security is more important. My friend from Wisconsin wants to add 
an amendment to limit the tax cut for millionaires to just over $83,000 
this year instead of the $88,000 they are set to get. I do not think it 
is too much to ask that people who have benefited the most in this 
great Nation pay $4,000 more for the security of all of us.
  Mr. Chairman, I again hope that when we have our negotiations, when 
we have our conferences that we will be able to put more money where it 
belongs to protect high-threat areas like New York City.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I am compelled again to talk about New York. All of us here are 
sympathetic, understanding, we want to help; but I feel compelled to 
lay out some facts that have not been laid out here. The fiscal year 
2003 bill, we gave $800 million in that bill for the high-threat, high-
density urban area grants and the discretion of the Secretary. $100 
million of that was in the omnibus; $700 million was in the 
supplemental. However, that money has not been spent. There is $800 
million laying there. Why? Because the grant application deadline for 
that first $100 million just ended on June 16, a couple of weeks ago, 
and has not been processed. The application deadline for the $700 
million that was in the supplemental is not up until July 7. We have 
not processed the applications yet. Those moneys will be going out 
there, to New York and the other cities.
  In addition to that, what I am saying is, I guess, have a little 
patience. Number two, when the President's request

[[Page H5766]]

came up to us for fiscal year 2004, there was no request for high 
threat, high-density urban grant moneys. Zero. The subcommittee worked 
on it, and we put in $500 million. Now people call that a cut. Boy, 
that is a strange use of the word. We increased it $500 million. If the 
Secretary thinks we ought to change that, then he needs to send us a 
budget supplemental and amend his request and we will consider it.
  However, all of the other grant programs, and there are six or seven 
of them, there are basic formula grants, there are law enforcement 
terrorism prevention grants, there are critical infrastructure grants, 
there are firefighter assistance grants, there are emergency management 
performance grants, there are emergency operations centers grants, all 
of which New York is eligible to apply for. We increased those funds 
over what the President wanted us to by $1 billion. So that now there 
is $4.04 billion available in those grant programs immediately. I would 
guess just by the odds and by the importance of New York that when you 
apply for those grants with the increased numbers there, all of these 
grants, you are probably going to wind up with more money than you got 
this year. But, please, have patience and understand that the rest of 
the country is interested in this as well. We want to help you, but I 
ask for your patience and understanding.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendments offered by the 
Members from New York. While it is true that we do not know where the 
next attack may be and that the entire Nation is vulnerable, I believe 
that it is important to recognize those areas considered as high-threat 
and high-density. The gentleman mentioned that there are other cities 
involved and, of course, we know that. Take my own city of San Diego as 
an example. San Diego is home to nearly 3 million residents and hosts 
millions of tourists annually. It is one of the regions that I believe 
Secretary Ridge has spoken about. In fact, he voiced those concerns 
when he visited San Diego recently. We have an international border and 
ports of entry, a coastline, a seaport, a busy airport, several major 
highways, a mass transit system, large public venues such as SeaWorld 
and Qualcomm Stadium, site of the Super Bowl. We have numerous military 
bases and military housing areas, and even a nuclear power plant. 
Protecting such an extensive list of vulnerable areas requires 
significant resources. Yes, we are applying for a lot of that money. We 
are trying. We are doing our best.
  Like all of my colleagues, I have heard from my first responders, 
from the sheriff's department, the police department, the fire 
department, the Coast Guard, the port authority, the Navy, the Marines 
and others about their struggle to protect our critical infrastructure. 
I believe that they are doing a fabulous job. But they need more, and 
they need our help. This is an important amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.


                amendment offered by mr. brady of texas

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
       In title II in the item ``OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC 
     PREPAREDNESS--Domestic Preparedness''--
       (1) in paragraph (1), after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced $200,000,000)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.

  Mr. BRADY of Texas (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 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) for their leadership and hard work on homeland security. I 
rise today in support of the Weiner-Brady-Fossella amendment to make 
our homeland security budget smarter and more targeted to high-threat 
areas. We are at war in this war on terrorism. In war, there are likely 
targets and there are less likely targets. You protect them both. I 
know that Chairman Rogers and Chairman Young have fought hard to make 
sure we do exactly right, protect both likely targets and less likely 
targets.
  What this amendment does is focus on those communities, on those 
States that will likely be and have been identified as high-threat, 
high-density urban areas. The States that have these high-threat 
communities include much of our country, New York and California, Texas 
and Illinois, Arizona and Colorado, Florida, Hawaii and Georgia, 
Massachusetts and Maryland, Michigan and Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio and 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington and the District of 
Columbia, all States that are host to urban areas that are at high risk 
and high threat of a terrorist attack. This amendment targets $200 
million and shifts it to the high-threat, high-density urban area 
funding. Part of the community that I represent, Houston, Texas, is on 
that list of top 10 communities. It is, I would imagine, as a result of 
both communications from al Qaeda terrorists, from information received 
from interviews with al Qaeda operatives and Houston is, of course, the 
energy capital of the world. It is home to more than 50 percent of the 
oil and gas refining in this country. If you chose to target America's 
energy supplies, if you chose to bring this country down by taking down 
our energy pipelines or our oil and gas facilities, this is where you 
would start. But we are not the only community at high risk and high 
threat of a terrorist attack. There are many throughout this country.
  What we seek from this amendment is making sure that these 
communities have a pool of money with that threat. More importantly, we 
make sure that when other communities are added to this list, when they 
suddenly become at high threat and a high-risk community, that when 
they come to the Federal Government for help, they are not told, we're 
sorry, we sent this money to other regions, less likely, less at risk, 
but that was the money we had. Unfortunately for all our efforts, and I 
know our government moves so slowly, even with the best intentions, I 
am afraid our communities do not understand our grant application 
process. I do not think they understand our time line. I think our 
communities are at risk today. We offer this amendment in good faith, 
recognizing just how diligent our chairman is in trying to protect 
communities of all size and all risk.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and others with 
whom we have consulted on trying to come up with a way to answer some 
of the fundamental questions. First of all, I think that we can be of 
agreement because, frankly, every Member, including the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member, have said that yes, the total number of 
dollars is probably not enough and this is going to be an ongoing 
process to see to it that we do allocate enough money to this because, 
frankly, we have no choice.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and others who have worked so 
hard to get that number as high as we can get it. There also, I 
believe, can be no other answer but yes to the question, do some areas 
have greater costs than others? Are there greater costs in ports of 
California, in States like New York? I will give Members an example. It 
is costing New York City $13 million a week to deal with the needs of 
homeland security. A week. If you drive over the Brooklyn Bridge at 3 
o'clock in the morning on a weekday morning, you will find both lanes 
inside closest to the stanchion with a fixed patrol car sitting there 
all day, all night, because of the national security threat that 
exists. That is more police man-hours than many police departments, and 
that is something that New York is absorbing because of these risks.
  Another question that is a little tougher to answer, but I know how I 
would answer it, is who should decide how homeland security funds get 
divided? Should it be my distinguished colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations and those of us in this body,

[[Page H5767]]

or should it be Secretary Ridge and the administration? I vote for the 
gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota and others 
here in this body, but I think we should keep in mind what Secretary 
Ridge has said.

                              {time}  1645

  Secretary Ridge has said very clearly, in fact, just within the last 
24 hours, that he believes that the present way we are distributing the 
money should be changed. He said ``distributing those dollars according 
to the old formula, I don't believe we get maximum security for the 
dollars that are expended at the national level.''
  This is continuing the quote: ``I'd like to see the numbers 
significantly higher than $500 million.''
  He goes on to say, ``I think every State should be given a certain 
amount of money,'' a sentiment that I agree with, ``but at the end of 
the day, I do believe that there are some communities and regions that 
need more money.''
  Continuing the quote: ``I have concerns about the distribution 
formula, [where] We just basically send out dollars to States and 
localities on a formula that doesn't consider infrastructure, doesn't 
consider anything other than population.'' I do not believe that is 
where are we at this House, and frankly I do have great confidence in 
my colleagues deciding how to distribute the money, but we do have to 
recognize that this is not just a New York City issue, as the chairman 
alluded to previously. This is an issue that affects about 30 different 
States and localities all around the country. The gentleman from Texas 
articulated the needs of his district. Others have come to this floor 
and talked about their cities and States. The fact remains that there 
are certain places that unfortunately are more likely today to be 
targets of terrorist attack than others and have to take steps that 
cannot be avoided. If for no other reason, many of the trials that are 
being held of those that are accused of terrorism are being held in New 
York City. Just the enforcement costs in Washington, D.C. and suburban 
Virginia, in New York City, in Chicago, Illinois in one case, just 
those costs are much higher than they are elsewhere. There has been a 
large increase in the overall basic formula grant, and I think the 
committee deserves great credit for this. What this amendment seeks to 
do is take the $700 million that was allocated last year, increase the 
$500 million to that $700 million. That still provides a $700 million 
increase in the basic formula grant, and I believe that that is a 
healthy step.
  I, however, want to say in closing, I want to close the way I began, 
I do believe that the chairman in his colloquy that he entered into 
earlier has clearly articulated his desire to get the money where it 
needs to go. I do believe that this is an amendment that gets the 
chairman and gets our House to that place.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) a 
question.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer a 
question.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, did I just hear correctly a little while ago 
that the Secretary's request of our committee for the high-threat urban 
grant was zero?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is correct.
  Mr. SABO. And our committee has recommended what?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Five hundred million.
  Mr. SABO. Five hundred million. And this goes to a limited number of 
communities in the country?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. It goes to the so-called high-threat/high-
density urban areas of the country, and I think they are talking 
probably of 20 cities or less, in the complete discretion of the 
Secretary.
  Mr. SABO. Which criteria that many of us have trouble understanding 
yet. The balance of the money flows by formula to the States, including 
the States that are eligible for this additional $500 million?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is correct.
  Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, for those of us who come from the 
heartland of the country, we are having discussion over how much money 
should go to ports. We have allocated a significant amount, and others 
would like to allocate more. My assumption is most of that goes along 
the coast.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I would guess so. But there are not many 
ocean ports in Minneapolis, I do not think.
  Mr. SABO. No. We do have a river one but fairly small. So I think it 
would be fair to say we made a special effort to try to allocate more 
money to ports, that that will go to a limited part of the country.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is correct.
  Mr. SABO. But we find that when we raise threat levels in this 
country, the law enforcement and local responders are expected to 
respond throughout the country and they have the same problem over 
time, training, teaching people how to use new equipment, wondering 
what it means, increasing pressure on local law enforcement. What I 
hear from all of them is that their expenditures exceed whatever 
revenue they are getting from the Federal Government. I expect the 
gentleman hears the same thing.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I hear the same thing every day.
  Mr. SABO. And this amendment, as I understand it, would take some of 
this little money that we distribute throughout the country and say we 
are going to cut that from everyone. Where they are working, trying to 
coordinate expenditures to make most efficient use of it, take it from 
that and give them to a few areas where we have already increased the 
administration's budget by $500 million; am I right?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is the way I understand the amendment. 
It would take $200 million away from all the States in order to beef up 
this cap from $500 million to $700 million just for the high-density/
high-urban area grants.
  Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, and this is money that local responders 
can use for buying new equipment in a coordinated fashion, in a State 
plan or for training to have them become equipped to meet the threats 
that may occur in this country?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is correct. In addition to 
that, as we have previously said, the subcommittee increased the amount 
of money for all of the grant programs of which there are seven, for 
firefighter grants and for infrastructure grants, emergency management 
grants, formula grants to States and cities and the like. All those 
grant programs, we increased by $1 billion above what the President 
wanted and $203 million more than the 2003 levels. So all of the States 
that have these high-density urban areas that would be eligible for the 
high-density grants will also be eligible for very larger pots of money 
that everyone else is trying to share with, and yet this amendment 
would take from that moneys and put it into the high-density/high-urban 
areas. We have gone through this in our subcommittee and in our full 
committee and we have labored with it and wrestled with it with the 
gentleman and in a bipartisan fashion from big cities and small, big 
States and small, and this was the best we could do. We think it is a 
fair way to do it. And to take the moneys from one area now and give it 
to another would open us up to an ugliness that I do not think we need 
to see in this battle.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I 
think he has given good advice to the body.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in spite of the wonderful exchange, I rise in support 
of the amendment, and I have great respect for the Members here on both 
sides and what they go through in this process. It is a difficult one 
to question and constantly evaluating and balancing priorities.
  My number one priority, as far as I am concerned, is to protect the 
American people. I think everybody in this Chamber supports that 
proposition. The question is how you would do that

[[Page H5768]]

the best way? We could do it in a lot of different ways. We can root 
out the terrorists overseas as our great brave men and women are doing 
in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the globe. That is one way. We have 
great local police departments and Federal law enforcement officials, 
intelligence officials who try to root out evil before it pops its 
head, and we can allocate funding to the places that need it the most. 
And I know there may be a fundamental difference as to where that money 
should go, and that is okay. But if the Members asked me how I stand up 
here and proclaim that not just New York City but those areas that we 
have defined as high-threat areas should get a disproportionate amount 
of this money, Exhibit A is September 11. Exhibit A demonstrates that 
the terrorists sought out places like New York City. Why? Because it is 
the capital of finance, the capital of the world in some people's 
minds, and, indeed, as we hope and pray they are not, but, indeed, they 
are out there trying to do the same thing right now. So if the Members 
ask me why we are here to try to shift the money to what we think is a 
priority, I think I would say I do not ever want to see something like 
September 11 happen again. And with all due respect to the towns and 
villages around the country that wrestle with this problem every day, I 
think it is common sense to suggest that some areas could be more 
targeted than others. I do not think there is an American who would not 
say every town is equal in that respect. So I would hope, and I take 
the chairman at his word because I have immense respect for him, for 
the people who he has around him, to work with us to ensure that not 
just New York City, but those urban areas full of American citizens get 
that funding they need.
  It has been brought up before what Secretary Ridge says. I am not 
going to rehash it. I will submit it for the Record. New York City, 
counterterrorism, intelligence and public safety, $200 million; 
training for first responders, police, fire, $99 million; security 
enhancement for facilities, $187 million; emergency preparation 
response equipment, $189 million; communications and information 
technology, $223 million. Total loan, $900 million.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady), who offered this, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler), and I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has 
worked hard. He mentioned the Brooklyn Bridge. Go to any bridge in New 
York City, any tunnel, 24 hours a day, people scanning cars, checking 
cars, checking trucks. Why? So that anybody coming into the city can 
feel more free and secure. That is what this debate is about. And I am 
hopeful that the good chairman once again, and I believe him, will 
follow through and use all existing systems to ensure that these cities 
and urban areas get what they deserve and get what they need.

       Tom Ridge. Well first of all, I share both the Governor's 
     and the Mayor's concern to reduce distributing those dollars. 
     According to the old formula, I don't believe we would be at 
     maximum security with the dollars that are being expended at 
     the federal level. We are going to work to get that number as 
     high as possible. Having been a member of Congress for twelve 
     years, that's the beginning of the process. The House has had 
     a number in mind. They've passed that and we'll be working 
     with the Senate. There's still a long way to go, but I would 
     like to see the number risen, significantly higher than the 
     $500 million.
       Reporter. Mr. Secretary, have you given the Governor and 
     the Mayor a specific limit, a specific amount of money?
       Tom Ridge. No, I think we are all in agreement that it 
     would have been a nice place to start with the 750. If we can 
     get the Congress to restore that quarter of a billion 
     dollars, that would be a great place to start. To finish 
     there, that would be at least preserving the status quo. As 
     for the supplemental, we got about $700 million and I think 
     at least preserving what we are able to distribute before. At 
     the end of the day ladies and gentlemen, if you take a look 
     at the population, the density of the population, the 
     equivocal infrastructure and the threat, there is one city 
     that no matter how you move those factors around and weigh 
     those factors it ends up at the top of the list and its New 
     York City. I think every state should be given a certain 
     amount of money and they build up a capacity to protect the 
     infrastructure, and the capacity to respond, and the capacity 
     to prevent a terrorist attack. But at the end of the day, I 
     do believe there are some communities and regions that need 
     more money because of the multitude of factors, not just 
     population.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, as do other speakers, the hard work of 
the members of the Committee on Appropriations and of the chairman and 
ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee. The bill before us 
provides $500 million for 47 high-threat/high-density areas, 47 cities. 
People are talking about New York. We are talking about 47 cities that 
are high-risk areas, $500 million. The bill also provides, as I 
understand it, $1.9 billion for the rest of the country. Low risk or 
less than high-risk areas. The amendment would change that somewhat to 
make it $700 million for the 47 high-risk areas, $700 million for all 
47 high-risk areas combined, and $1.7 billion the low-risk areas or 
less-than-high-risk areas in the rest of the country. By way of 
comparison, just keeping police officers on duty costs the City of New 
York, one high-risk area, $676 million a year. This amendment would 
make $700 million available to all 47 high-risk areas. So we are 
talking about a small fraction of what any of these high-risk areas are 
spending.
  There is not enough being allocated, there is not enough that we 
could allocate, for all the high-risk areas and the rest of the areas. 
All some of us are saying here for New York, for Pennsylvania, for 
Illinois, for Houston, for Texas, for other high-risk areas is that we 
should be a little more rational in allocating the funds a little more 
on the basis of where the heavier expenditures are necessary because of 
where the risks are and how much it costs to guard against those risks 
and a little less on the uniform geographic basis which is the other 
half of this allocation.

                              {time}  1700

  Now, I understand, of course, that in the end the committee and the 
conference committee are going to make this allocation. What we are 
saying now is we want to bring to the attention of the body some of the 
considerations that say that there should be a little more rationale, 
rationality, to put a little more of the money for high-risk areas 
where so much more is necessary.
  I appreciate the work that has been done by the committee and the 
work that will be done. I hope the committee will see its way clear to 
balancing this a little better, not for New York alone, but for the 
other 46 high-risk areas which have billions of dollars that have to be 
spent on this, not hundreds of millions.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would simply like to observe one fact, Mr. Chairman. I understand 
that one of the reasons why so many members of the New York delegation 
are exercised on this issue today is because Mr. Ridge, who is the head 
of the Homeland Security agency, was quoted in the newspapers saying 
that, yes, it was absolutely true, there ought to be more money for 
high-threat areas. That is very nice to hear him say that.
  The problem is, his budget, the budget presented by the President on 
behalf of his agency, had not one dime in for that purpose, and this 
committee put in $500 million. It was $700 million that was put in in 
the omnibus just a few months ago.
  So I appreciate the sentiments being voiced here today, but I would 
point out that since this House passed a tax package which has taken 
away this committee's ability to provide funding that we ought to be 
providing for this and other high-priority areas in this bill, it seems 
to me that at this point, rather than asking this committee to get a 
double hernia trying to do something which is fiscally impossible, 
given the budget caps that we have been provided, it seems to me what 
he ought to do is march down to the White House and tell the President 
to amend his budget and his tax bill so we can afford his legitimate 
request. Without that, to me, at this point, we are just flap-jawing 
and we are not going to have any real opportunity to help the areas of 
the country you are talking about, except by hurting other areas of the 
country.
  The Republican tax package which my colleagues voted for on that side 
of the aisle has put us in this position

[[Page H5769]]

where, if we are going to deal with problems in one section of the 
country, we have to beggar thy neighbor. I am not very enthused about 
that. I think New York and other high-impact areas deserve this money, 
but I think the rural areas do too; and I would simply say that short 
as this bill is on this item, it does a whole lot better by that part 
of the country than the President's recommendation.
  So the first thing I would say to Mr. Ridge is, go back to Washington 
and lobby your President, to ask him to put in the money that you told 
the New York folks was necessary.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to probably not take the full 5 minutes 
because, in part, I am going to reiterate some things that have already 
been said here on the floor: in part, the colloquy that the chairman of 
the subcommittee engaged in and, in part, in reflection of the last two 
amendments in particular, which I think point out the real difficult 
task this subcommittee, this chairman, and the ranking member faced in 
the course of putting together this plan.
  In stating the obvious, I will agree with the ranking member of the 
overall committee. It is quite clear that there apparently has been a 
change at the administration; that the current plan or the current 
structure of the plan that was sent forward has changed significantly, 
certainly overnight, and it is somewhat reflective in the fact that my 
colleagues in the New York delegation have come to the floor and have 
argued vehemently. But they are not new to that argument. We have all 
been making the case that we are not quite sure whether there is enough 
money in high-risk, high-density funding in this particular program. 
But I can tell my colleagues that not anyone, Mr. Chairman, in this 
Chamber, in this House, and in this Nation can tell us whether we have 
appropriated enough at this point in time. That is exactly the point, 
exactly the point that I think the chairman of the subcommittee has 
been making.
  Given the information we have now, given the money that has been 
appropriated and flowed out, given what we know in terms of the 
expenses, and we talked about it in that colloquy earlier, we are 
trying to meet those needs, that this House has recognized that needs 
exist in specific areas that rise to a certain level above what the 
rest of the community is, and that it is somewhat grossly unfair for us 
to have to make those determinations on where exactly all of this goes, 
taking possibly from one area unequally and giving to another area.
  But it is absurd to make the point or argue that there is not enough 
money there. We have appropriated billions and billions of dollars, and 
what we see here in place is a work in progress.
  I would say to my friends from New York especially, but to those from 
other parts of the country who have introduced the last couple of 
amendments who would like to see us take from one fund to the other, 
that that is not the appropriate course at this time, given the 
information that we have. I actually trust the notion that when we go 
to conference, the very people who created the high-risk, high-density 
fund, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), this subcommittee, 
are in the best place to determine what that appropriate funding is 
going to be; and I have every bit of confidence that we are going to be 
able to meet that need.
  There has been an acknowledgment on this floor by the chairman, by 
this committee, that the work is incomplete; that there are needs that 
are going to be met. It is not just here in high-risk; it is in a lot 
of other places. But given the opportunity to examine that, I hear the 
call from the chairman, and I have every bit of confidence that we are 
going to be able to do that, equally covering the needs of the rest of 
the communities in our Nation to ensure the safety of the American 
people.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, based upon the gentleman's 
comments, the hard work that the gentleman has done, and I know that 
this is a key issue and I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and others who 
are involved in this, and I also appreciate the strong leadership of 
our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers); and based upon 
this discussion today, based upon the hard work, because we all try to 
raise the level of funding for our communities, I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             TITLE III--EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

                 Administrative and Regional Operations

       For necessary expenses for administrative and regional 
     operations of the Emergency Preparedness and Response 
     Directorate, $168,589,000, including activities authorized by 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 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), 
     Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, and the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002; of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

            Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery

       For necessary expenses for preparedness, mitigation, 
     response, and recovery activities of the Emergency 
     Preparedness and Response Directorate, $363,339,000, 
     including activities authorized by the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 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), Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 
     1978, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002; of which 
     $25,000,000 shall be for emergency operations centers grants: 
     Provided, That the aggregate charges assessed during fiscal 
     year 2004, as authorized 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 further, 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 pursuant to this 
     section shall be deposited in this account as offsetting 
     collections, shall become available for authorized purposes 
     on October 1, 2004, and shall remain available until 
     expended.

                         Public Health Programs

       For necessary expenses for countering potential biological, 
     disease, and chemical threats to civilian populations, 
     $484,000,000, including $400,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for the Strategic National Stockpile.

                       Biodefense Countermeasures

       For necessary expenses for securing medical countermeasures 
     against biological terror attacks, $5,593,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $3,418,000,000 may be obligated during fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008, of which not to exceed $890,000,000 may be 
     obligated during fiscal year 2004.

                             Grant Programs

       For activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage 
     to structures pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), notwithstanding sections 
     1366(b)(3) (B)-(C) and 1366(f) of such Act, and 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.), $200,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the National Flood Insurance Fund, and shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2005: 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 title II (42 U.S.C. 5133(g)): Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 203(f) of such title II (42 U.S.C. 
     5133(f)), grant awards shall be made without reference to 
     State allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation 
     of funds.

                       Emergency Food and Shelter

       To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant 
     to title III of Public Law 100-77 (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), 
     $153,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That total administrative costs shall not exceed 3\1/2\ 
     percent of the total appropriation.


[[Page H5770]]


  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, before I enter into a colloquy 
with the distinguished chairman, thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee. Even before it was created, the leaders on this 
subcommittee were instrumental in helping our first responders.
  There has been a lot of rhetoric about this Congress not doing enough 
for the first responders. Let me say to my colleagues in this body that 
before 9-11 occurred there was no program to assist our first 
responders nationwide, nothing. And Congress has, over the past years, 
had plenty of opportunities, but never saw fit. And disasters were not 
new. We had them all during the history of this country.
  It was this Congress in 2000, with the leadership of the 
distinguished chairman of the full committee and the distinguished 
chairman of this subcommittee, who saw fit to create a grant program 
for our 32,000 fire and EMS departments in America. That was created in 
2000, the year before 9-11. Initially, it was funded at $100 million. 
It went to $300 million, and this year, because of the leadership of 
the distinguished chairman from Kentucky and the support of the ranking 
member, the support for our firefighter grant program is at $715 
million.
  Many of our colleagues have said it is the most popular and most 
successful program that Congress has created. We are doing good work on 
behalf of the Nation's first responders. I want to applaud this 
subcommittee for their outstanding efforts and let them know, as the 
founder and chairman of the Fire Caucus and a former fire chief myself, 
they have done outstanding work; and it is paying dividends all over 
the country.
  So, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for your strong 
support of the Nation's first responders.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of 
this subcommittee, regarding a very important program called FIRESAT.
  Mr. Chairman, one need not look further than the news reports of the 
destructive and violent wildfires in Arizona. In 2000, over 8 million 
acres of pristine wilderness burned, and Federal agencies expended more 
than $1.3 billion in fire suppression costs. Last year, in 2002, 
wildfires scorched over 7 million acres. Hundreds of homes were 
destroyed and firefighters gave their lives.
  FIRESAT is a satellite system that is able to detect wildfires in 
their early stages while they are still less than 1 acre in size. While 
the tools are at our disposal to save lives and billions of dollars, 
the equipment for this program remains boxed in offices in Reston, 
Virginia. This project can be fully activated with the necessary 
security upgrades and software upgrades in time for the fire season 
this year for $7.5 million. In relation to the billions of dollars lost 
in these wild land fires every year, this is truly a smart investment. 
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have the technology and the means to do 
something about this.
  FIRESAT was originally labeled the Hazard Support System and 
developed by Ratheon with funds which I obtained from the Department of 
Defense in 1997. The system was subsequently transferred to the U.S. 
Geological Survey and NOAA who, for unknown reasons, did not request 
funds for the program in their budget. At the request last year of Joe 
Albaugh, the director of FEMA, we successfully transferred the system, 
now named FIRESAT, within the Homeland Security Act to the Department 
of Homeland Security's Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and 
Response.
  Today is our opportunity to install a commonsense solution to the 
annual wildfires that wreck havoc to communities and forests all over 
America and place countless firefighters in danger. I hope that under 
the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) an 
opportunity will present itself to fund this economical and much-needed 
program.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let me return the thanks. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been 
our leader in the Congress for first responders, not just firefighters, 
but first responders in general; and he brings an expertise to this job 
not just from an educational point of view, but he is back there with 
them. So I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on these 
issues and for bringing this very timely subject to our attention.
  Considering the devastation that wildfires cause to our Nation each 
year, I look forward to working with the gentleman during conference so 
that we can address this important matter.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the House is set to pass a Homeland Security 
appropriations bill that falls well short of where our country needs to 
be to effectively combat our greatest vulnerability: the threat to our 
Nation's port facilities.
  Today, in the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Homeland Security, we 
had the opportunity to hear from Rand Beers, who recently resigned from 
President Bush's National Security Council because he said that ``the 
administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on 
terrorism. They are making us less secure, not more secure.''
  He told us that our Nation's port facilities are crying out for 
protection and that the administration's neglect of the issue was a 
cause of great concern and puzzlement for him.
  The Coast Guard says that the cost of infrastructure improvements to 
secure our ports for fiscal year 2004 would run around $963 million. 
This bill only appropriates $100 million. Welcome funding, yes, but far 
short of where we need to be.
  The Coast Guard also says that it will need $70 million to evaluate 
the security plans for ports across America by the July 2004 deadline 
mandated by the Maritime Transportation and Security Act. This bill 
does not provide any of the $70 million the Coast Guard says it needs.
  The Obey amendment would address these and many others needs, yet we 
cannot consider the Obey amendment here today.
  Why is it that we continue to neglect port security funding when the 
CIA tells us we are more likely to be attacked by a weapon of mass 
destruction smuggled aboard a ship than we are by an intercontinental 
ballistic missile? The fact that our ports are threatened might come as 
a surprise to millions of Americans who watched as Secretary Ridge 
announced that the Department of Homeland Security was releasing 
millions of dollars in port security grants.

                              {time}  1715

  But it does not come as a surprise to those of us in Congress who 
listened as administration officials told us that those scant few 
dollars appropriated for port security grant programs and Operation 
Safe Commerce would probably be rerouted to aviation security.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of recent world events, this is simply 
unacceptable. We are not giving port security the funding it needs just 
weeks after an Egyptian sailor attempted to smuggle anthrax aboard a 
ship bound for North America. We are not giving port security the 
funding it needs the day after 600 tons of explosives were discovered 
aboard a ship bound for a fictitious company in Sudan. And we are not 
funding port security the same day my hometown paper, the Houston 
Chronicle, says that al Qaeda might be targeting oil and port 
facilities in Houston during the Fourth of July holiday.
  We cannot afford to ignore the Obey amendment. Like Rand Beers said, 
``America's ports are crying out for protection.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is about time we start listening.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Firefighter Assistance Grants


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     programs as authorized by section 33 of the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), 
     $750,000,000 to remain available through September 30, 2005: 
     Provided, That up to 5 percent of this amount shall be 
     transferred to

[[Page H5771]]

     ``Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery'' for 
     program administration.

                            Disaster Relief


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $1,800,000,000 and, notwithstanding 42 
     U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended, of which not 
     to exceed $22,000,000 may be transferred to the Office of 
     Inspector General for audits and investigations.

                      Flood Map Modernization Fund

       For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, $200,000,000, 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.

                     National Flood Insurance Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, not to 
     exceed $32,761,000 for salaries and expenses associated with 
     flood mitigation and flood insurance operations, and not to 
     exceed $77,809,000 for flood mitigation, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2005, including up to $20,000,000 for 
     expenses under section 1366 of such Act of 1968, which amount 
     shall be available for transfer to Grant Programs until 
     September 30, 2005, and which amounts shall be derived from 
     offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 42 
     U.S.C. 4014, and shall be retained and used for necessary 
     expenses under this heading: Provided, That no funds, in 
     excess of $55,000,000 for operating expenses; $565,897,000 
     for agents' commissions and taxes; and $40,000,000 for 
     interest on Treasury borrowings, shall be available from the 
     National Flood Insurance Fund without prior notice to the 
     Committees on Appropriations.

            Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

       For direct loans, as authorized by section 319 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act: Provided, That these funds are available to subsidize 
     gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans 
     not to 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. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program, 
     $558,000.

                TITLE IV--OTHER DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

                  CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration 
     services, including international services, $248,500,000.

                       UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377 (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note); and recreation and welfare; $4,703,530,000, of which 
     $1,300,000,000 shall be for defense-related activities; of 
     which $25,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund; and of which not to exceed $3,000 shall 
     be for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be available for pay of administrative 
     expenses in connection with shipping commissioners in the 
     United States: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided in this Act shall be available for expenses incurred 
     for yacht documentation under section 12109 of title 46, 
     United States Code, except to the extent fees are collected 
     from yacht owners and credited to this appropriation.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

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

                            Reserve Training

       For all necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; 
     and supplies, equipment, and services; $94,051,000.

              Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $805,000,000, of which $23,500,000 shall be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; of which 
     $66,500,000 shall be available until September 30, 2008 to 
     acquire, repair, renovate, or improve vessels, small boats, 
     and related equipment; $138,500,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 2006 for other equipment; $70,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2005 for personnel compensation 
     and benefits and related costs; and $530,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2008 for the Integrated 
     Deepwater Systems program: Provided, That the Commandant of 
     the Coast Guard is authorized to dispose of surplus real 
     property, by sale or lease, and the proceeds shall be 
     credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and 
     shall be available until September 30, 2006 only for Rescue 
     21 (the National Distress and Response System Modernization 
     program): Provided further, That upon initial submission to 
     the Congress of the fiscal year 2005 President's budget, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall transmit to the Congress 
     a comprehensive capital investment plan for the United States 
     Coast Guard that includes funding for each budget line item 
     for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, with total funding for 
     each year of the plan constrained to the funding targets for 
     those years as estimated and approved by the Office of 
     Management and Budget.

                         Alteration of Bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, $19,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     applied scientific research, development, test, and 
     evaluation; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law; 
     $22,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to and used 
     for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from 
     State and local governments, other public authorities, 
     private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred 
     for research, development, testing, and evaluation.

                              Retired Pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for 
     this purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career 
     status bonuses under the National Defense Authorization Act, 
     and for payments for medical care of retired personnel and 
     their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 
     U.S.C. ch. 55), $1,020,000,000.

           INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Directorate of Information 
     Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the Department of 
     Homeland Security as authorized by law, $776,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2005.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

           Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations

       For necessary expenses of activities of the Department of 
     Homeland Security in carrying out the purposes of title III 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296), 
     for basic and applied research, development, test and 
     evaluation, construction, procurement, production, 
     modification and modernization of systems, subsystems, spare 
     parts, accessories, training devices, operation of the 
     Science and Technology Directorate and its organizations and 
     activities, including the Homeland Security Advanced Research 
     Projects Agency, for cooperative programs with States and 
     local governments to enable the detection, destruction, 
     disposal, or mitigation of the effects of weapons of mass 
     destruction and other terrorist weapons, and for the 
     construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of buildings and other facilities, and equipment, 
     necessary for the activities of the Directorate, 
     $900,360,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.

                      UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service, 
     $1,148,700,000, including purchase of American-made side-car 
     compatible motorcycles; hire of aircraft; services of expert 
     witnesses at such rates as may be determined by the Director; 
     rental of buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing, 
     lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or 
     other property not in Government ownership or control, as may 
     be necessary to perform protective functions; for payment of 
     per diem and subsistence allowances to employees where a 
     protective assignment during the actual day or days of the 
     visit of a protectee require an employee to work 16 hours per 
     day or to remain overnight at his or her post of duty; the 
     conducting of and participating in firearms matches; 
     presentation of awards; for travel of Secret Service 
     employees on protective missions without regard to the 
     limitation on such expenditures in this or any other Act; for 
     research and development; for making grants to conduct 
     behavioral research in support of protective research and 
     operations; not to exceed $25,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; not to exceed $100,000 to provide 
     technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement 
     organizations in counterfeit investigations; for payment in 
     advance for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to 
     perform protective functions; and for uniforms without regard 
     to the general purchase limitation for the current fiscal 
     year: Provided, That $1,633,000 shall be available for 
     forensic and related support of investigations of missing and 
     exploited children: Provided further, That $4,783,000 shall 
     be available as a grant for activities related to the 
     investigations of exploited children and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That up to 
     $18,000,000 for protective travel shall remain

[[Page H5772]]

     available until September 30, 2005: Provided further, That 
     subject to the reimbursement of actual costs to this account, 
     funds appropriated in this account shall be available, at the 
     discretion of the Director, for the following: training 
     United States Postal Service law enforcement personnel and 
     Postal police officers, training Federal law enforcement 
     officers, training State and local government law enforcement 
     officers on a space-available basis, and training private 
     sector security officials on a space-available basis: 
     Provided further, That the United States Secret Service is 
     authorized to obligate funds in anticipation of 
     reimbursements from agencies and entities, as defined in 
     section 105 of title 5, United States Code, receiving 
     training sponsored by the James J. Rowley Training Center, 
     except that total obligations at the end of the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed total budgetary resources available under 
     this heading at the end of the fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That the James J. Rowley Training Center is authorized to 
     provide short-term medical services for students undergoing 
     training at the Center.

  Mr. LATHAM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 37, line 13 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 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 31, line 6, through page 37, line 13, 
is as follows:

     Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

       For necessary expenses of construction, repair, alteration, 
     and improvement of facilities, $3,579,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.


                   (TRANSFERS OF UNEXPENDED BALANCES)

       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. 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.


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       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 
     2004, 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 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 2004, 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 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 in this Act or provided in 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 pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds and shall not be available for 
     obligation unless the Committees on Appropriations 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 2004 from appropriations 
     made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2004 
     in this Act, shall remain available through September 30, 
     2005, for each such account for the purposes authorized: 
     Provided, That a request shall be submitted to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for approval prior to the expenditure of 
     such funds: Provided further, That these requests shall be 
     made in compliance with reprogramming guidelines.
       Sec. 505. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, funds 
     may be used for hire and purchase of motor vehicles as 
     authorized by section 1343 of title 31, United States Code: 
     Provided, That purchase for police-type use of passenger 
     vehicles may be made without regard to the general purchase 
     price limitation for the current fiscal year.
       Sec. 506. The Federal Emergency Management Agency ``Working 
     Capital Fund'' shall be available to the Department of 
     Homeland Security, as authorized by sections 503 and 1517 of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002, for expenses and equipment 
     necessary for maintenance and operations of such 
     administrative services as the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     determines may be performed more advantageously as central 
     services. Such fund shall hereafter be known as the 
     ``Department of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund''.
       Sec. 507. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     ``Bequests and Gifts'' account shall be available to the 
     Department of Homeland Security, as authorized by sections 
     503 and 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, for the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to accept, hold, administer, 
     and utilize gifts and bequests, including property, to 
     facilitate the work of the Department of Homeland Security: 
     Provided, That such fund shall hereafter be known as 
     ``Department of Homeland Security, Gifts and Donations'': 
     Provided further, That any gift or bequest shall be used in 
     accordance with the terms of that gift or bequest to the 
     greatest extent practicable.
       Sec. 508. 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 2004 until the 
     enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 
     year 2004.
       Sec. 509. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is 
     directed to establish an accrediting body that will include 
     representatives from the Federal law enforcement community, 
     as well as non-Federal accreditation experts involved in law 
     enforcement training. The purpose of this body will be to 
     establish standards for measuring and assessing the quality 
     and effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training 
     programs, facilities, and instructors.
       Sec. 510. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would 
     establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than 5 miles 
     wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation Scheme and 
     the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
       Sec. 511. 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 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 of Domestic Preparedness; (2) any letter of intent 
     from the Transportation Security Administration; or (3) any 
     port security grant: Provided, That no notification shall 
     involve funds that are not available for obligation.
       Sec. 512. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     agency shall purchase, construct, and/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, 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. 513. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is 
     directed to ensure that all of the training centers under its 
     control are operated at their highest potential capacity 
     efficiency throughout the fiscal year. In order to facilitate 
     this direction, the Director is authorized to schedule basic 
     and advanced law enforcement training at any site the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Training Center determines is warranted in 
     the interests of the Government to ensure the best 
     utilization of the Center's total capacity for training, 
     notwithstanding legislative prohibitions.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 514. Section 114 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) Fee Authority for Transportation Credentials.--
       ``(1) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may impose reasonable fees and 
     charges on an individual or an individual's employer, where 
     such an individual requires a credential or background 
     records check under Federal law for an activity in the field 
     of transportation, to cover the costs of providing the 
     credential or performing the backgrounds records check, 
     including--
       ``(A) conducting or obtaining a criminal history records 
     check and a review of available law enforcement databases and 
     records

[[Page H5773]]

     of other governmental and international agencies;
       ``(B) review and adjudication of requests for waiver and 
     appeals of agency decisions with respect to providing the 
     credential, performing the background records check, and 
     denials of requests for waiver and appeals; and
       ``(C) any other costs of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to providing the credential or 
     performing the backgrounds records check.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that the fees are 
     reasonably related to the costs of the Transportation 
     Security Administration for providing services rendered. The 
     amount of costs imposed under this subsection shall be 
     determined by the Secretary and shall not be subject to 
     judicial review.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding section 9701 of title 31 and the 
     procedural requirements of section 553 of title 5, the 
     Secretary may impose a fee under this subsection through the 
     publication of notice in the Federal Register.
       ``(4) Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, any fee 
     collected under this section--
       ``(A) shall be credited as an offsetting collection to the 
     account in the Treasury from which the expenses were incurred 
     and are available to the Secretary for these expenses; and
       ``(B) shall remain available until expended.''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 514.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 514 
on page 37, line 14 through page 39, line 10. This particular section 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore 
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the 
House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that section 514 proposes directly to change existing 
law, to wit: section 114 of title 49, United States Code, and as such 
it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(b) of rule 21, and 
the point of order is sustained. Section 514 is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 515. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the production of customs declarations that do 
     not inquire whether the passenger has been in the proximity 
     of livestock.
       Sec. 516. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary 
     of any Government employee where funding an activity or 
     paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a 
     determination, regulation, or policy that would prohibit the 
     enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
       Sec. 517. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to allow--
       (1) the importation into the United States of any good, 
     ware, article, or merchandise mined, produced, or 
     manufactured by forced or indentured child labor, as 
     determined pursuant to section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
     (19 U.S.C. 1307); or
       (2) the release into the United States of any good, ware, 
     article, or merchandise on which there is in effect a 
     detention order, pursuant to such section 307, on the basis 
     that the good, ware, article, or merchandise may have been 
     mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured 
     child labor.
       Sec. 518. Appropriations to the Department of Homeland 
     Security in this Act shall be available for purchase of 
     insurance for official motor vehicles operated in foreign 
     countries; purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the 
     general purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and 
     used overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into 
     contracts with the Department of State for the furnishing of 
     health and medical services to employees and their dependents 
     serving in foreign countries; and services authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 519. None of the funds appropriated in 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. 520. None of the funds in 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. 521. 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 (e)(1)(B), by striking ``which is after 
     the date of enactment of this Act and''; and
       (4) in subsection (d) by striking all after ``in the 
     interest of'' and inserting ``national security.''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 521 
on page 41, line 15 through line 25, of H.R. 2555 on the grounds that 
this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of the 
House rule 21 and therefore is legislation included in a general 
appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do further Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut may proceed.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my serious opposition to 
this point of order and point out the hypocrisy of what my friends on 
the other side of the aisle are doing here.
  I offered this amendment during the Committee on Appropriations 
consideration of this bill. It was accepted by the chairman and it was 
passed on a voice vote. Yet, today they use a technical excuse to 
justify stripping it from the bill. Just another gimmick.
  This amendment would do nothing more than restore the law to the form 
it held when 318 Members of this House voted for a motion to recommit 
that I offered to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from 
contracting with corporate expatriates on July 26, 2002. But before 
that bill became law, loopholes were added that exempted most of the 
expatriate companies from the provision.
  Expatriate companies are those that go offshore solely for the 
purposes of not paying taxes in the United States. At the time the 
majority leadership said publicly that those loopholes would be closed. 
Last November 19 the former leader of the other body told reporters 
that he had received a commitment from the Speaker and the majority 
leader that this would be fixed. Unfortunately, we have yet to do that.
  We have an obligation to address this issue. American companies, 
particularly those contracting with our government, ought to be paying 
American taxes just like every citizen and corporation in this country. 
By this action, the Republican majority is demonstrating that they do 
not hold those same values. Since the majority leadership has failed to 
act, I offered an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations to close 
those loopholes added to the law last summer. Let me stress again that 
this amendment was accepted by the chairman of the subcommittee and 
passed on a voice vote.
  The amendment would simply prohibit Federal agencies from contracting 
with a domestic subsidiary of any company that has moved overseas. This 
will prevent corporations from setting up a shell company overseas but 
then continue to exploit the tax loophole by obtaining government 
contracts here at home.
  One high ranking Republican member of the Committee on Ways and Means 
said about closing this loophole that ``business does not like that.''
  Is that how we decide how to solve our problem? This amendment would 
further make the contract ban retroactive so it applies to existing 
corporate expatriates.
  Finally, the amendment includes a waiver solely for the purposes of 
national security, which is what was included in the original ban 
passed on the floor. That waiver was unnecessarily expanded last year 
for all intents and purposes, making the entire provision meaningless.
  Evidence shows that corporate expatriates cost our government about 
$4 billion in revenue, funds that we sorely need. Yet they continue to 
receive $2.7 billion in government contracts after they have abdicated 
their most basic responsibility as citizens. We should not reward these 
companies with contracts from the very department that

[[Page H5774]]

is charged with safeguarding our homeland security.
  We should not use procedural sleight of hands to disguise the fact 
that some in this body want to condone that very practice. I am not 
calling for a vote at this time, but I would hope that the House 
leadership will seriously revisit this issue. It is wrong. It is un-
American, and it is a travesty to think about these companies who 
refuse to pay taxes to this country and yet want to be the 
beneficiaries of the dollars and the contracts in order to deal with 
homeland security. Let us live up to the commitment that 318 of us made 
last year.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, the DeLauro amendment adopted by the 
Committee on Appropriations as part of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Bill is in fact a significant change in the procurement 
policy of the United States, a subject clearly within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Government Reform under House Rule 10.
  The DeLauro amendment calls for a broad sweeping contracting ban for 
so-called inverted domestic corporations and is clearly a change in 
existing law. As such, this section is in clear violation of clause 
2(b) of House Rule 21, providing that no provision changing existing 
law shall be reported in any general appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there Members wishing to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule and will so rule.
  The Chair finds that section 521 proposes directly to change existing 
law, to wit: section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and as 
such it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(b) of rule 21, 
and the point of order is sustained. Section 521 is stricken from the 
bill.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, for the better part of 2 years now we have been 
promised a vote on closing the Bermuda loophole, an effort to amend 
this process on the floor where the Republican leadership has accepted 
by a margin so lopsided that it rivals any vote that we will take in 
any given legislative year. I believe 318 members of this House voted 
to do something about these corporate expatriates who not only leave 
the United States to avoid paying taxes but then have the unmitigated 
gall to bid on defense work in homeland security legislation. Ingersoll 
Rand, TYCO, these companies are avoiding billions of dollars in taxes, 
joint taxes estimated that we would garner, an additional $5 billion if 
we would simply close the Bermuda tax loophole.
  Now, I know what the talking points of the Republican Party are on 
this. It is the corporate tax structure that is at fault. Well, if that 
is the case after 9 years why have not we done something about it? It 
is unbelievable where we had a chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means who used to say he was going to pull the Tax Code up by its 
roots. Well, America tonight knows that that tax system is more 
complicated and more unfair than ever.
  We were going to drive a stake through the heart of the Tax Code. We 
were going to have tax simplicity. You know what we have had? We have 
had the rewarding of rich friends by our failure to address this issue.
  For the Americans that are viewing this evening, I would ask you what 
would happen if you moved to Bermuda and declared that by renting a 
post office box you had taken citizenship on that island nation.

                              {time}  1730

  The IRS would be after you the next day. There would be no avenue of 
retreat, no opportunity to do what these corporations are doing. We 
have got 150,000 troops in Iraq tonight; and we talk about patriotism, 
while these guys renounce their citizenship and everybody knows that 
they continue to do substantial business and have their real corporate 
addresses here in the United States? And yet we cannot get a vote in 
this House of Representatives on that matter.
  Two years ago, David Rogers in the Wall Street Journal was promised 
by the leadership of this House ``there would have to be a vote on the 
Bermuda tax loophole.'' We are no closer to doing that this evening 
than we were 2 years ago; and that argument, again it galls everybody. 
It is the corporate tax structure that is at fault, not these folks 
moving offshore to avoid their responsibilities to live in this great 
Nation. That is patriotic, to pay our taxes and the $82 billion that 
Iraq is costing and $42 billion for homeland security.
  We define patriotism by allowing these guys to move their corporate 
address to Bermuda for one exclusive purpose, to avoid taxes. What does 
that say about this great Nation and our principles? Yet the 
intransigence of the leadership on the majority side month after month 
after month is to do nothing about it. Put that question on the floor 
here about whether or not these folks should pay their taxes and I tell 
my colleagues what we would get, 350 votes for it and everybody knows 
it.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my friend, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), in support of providing domestic sourcing 
preferences for the Department of Homeland Security. As we take steps 
to protect our homeland security, an integral part of the process is 
strengthening our national and economic security. Through applying 
provisions that support the American industrial defense base to the 
Department of Homeland Security we can help ensure that American 
companies are able to provide the crucial goods needed by the agency to 
promote homeland security.
  The American taxpayer provides the dollars which Congress then 
appropriates. It is only right that those same dollars are reinvested 
back into our economy. These dollars are reinvested back into our 
companies and workers and not those of a foreign country who could be 
an opponent or, at worst, a non-ally.
  It is wise to provide for the livelihood of American citizens while 
funding government agencies. Homeland security starts at home, just as 
the name implies, in the homes and paychecks of American families. One 
of the most frequent questions I am asked by constituents is how they 
can sell their products or goods to the U.S. Government.
  Today we have the ability to ensure that U.S. companies will be able 
to pursue and win contracts with the Federal Government. We have the 
opportunity to safeguard our economic security and keep America strong 
while providing necessary funds for America's homeland security.
  My top two priorities are economic security and national security. 
Strengthening our homeland security is something that we are all 
working hard to do. There is no reason that the Department of Homeland 
Security should not do everything they can within reason to buy 
American goods.
  A few years back we had an unfortunate episode where the U.S. Army 
purchased over 1 million black berets for U.S. soldiers. The problem 
was that a majority of those berets were made in China, and I think we 
all can agree that is ridiculous.
  We need to take steps to ensure that government agencies not only 
improve our homeland security, but we have also got to take advantage 
of every opportunity we can to strengthen and promote jobs here at 
home.
  I urge adoption of this crucial provision and would like to thank the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his staff for working with me 
to provide American companies every opportunity to contract with the 
Department of Homeland Security and keep America strong.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the ranking member of the full 
committee and the chairman of the full committee, as well as the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo), respectively the chairman and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, are making every effort to work as 
diligently as they can on addressing the question of homeland security.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to address the question of 
neighborhood security, and I believe that in the

[[Page H5775]]

course of the debate on the floor of the House many Members have come 
to debate questions and offer amendments not to be frivolous, but to 
ensure that our duty and responsibility to the American people are 
carried out.
  I rise in support of an amendment, recognizing that the offerers have 
withdrawn it, but I rise to explain to my colleagues the importance of 
the concept offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). I came back from field hearings 
not in my district but in Long Beach, California, and Los Angeles, 
California; and I think it is important to note that there is no 
attempt here to diminish anyone's need for security in any part of the 
country. In fact, I am a very strong advocate for focusing on urban and 
rural areas because no one ever knows where a terrorist will attack, 
but I think this concept of delivering moneys only on the basis of 
population and not having a formula that responds to the high-targeted 
areas, let me share with my colleagues from the Houston Chronicle a 
comment noted that, with Texas as the target, officials are especially 
concerned about oil or gas facilities and pipelines because al Qaeda 
terrorists in the past have talked about attacking the energy sector as 
a way of damaging America's economy, officials said.
  Mr. Chairman, even on 9-11 as we were trying to find out what was 
happening, rumors abounded that Houston was one of the cities because 
of its oil interests and its oil facilities that might be on the list 
of the terrorists that were now in the United States and tragically and 
horribly had struck the World Towers. It is important to recognize 
reality, and this idea of the formula is to make sense out of a simple 
process that gives moneys on the basis of population.
  I believe, for example, we would take one State that might get $33 a 
person because of its population that is less than the State of Texas 
with its high density and its problems with oil refineries and other 
oil interests, and they would only get $3 or $4 a person. I know as we 
visited Long Beach and Los Angeles, and I use them only as an example, 
that the issue that was being made by those first responders was the 
need for resources in their hands.
  Another point that was made was the need for resources to utilize the 
personnel, Mr. Chairman, not just for equipment, and this is one of the 
things that I believe we should openly discuss, that the formula that 
is presently utilized gives money only for equipment to our first 
responders. They need money for personnel. One can have the highest 
degree of equipment; but if they do not have personnel in the law 
enforcement, police departments, if they do not have personnel in the 
fire department, specifically the hazardous materials unit, that 
usually four people or five people or six people, it is key, Mr. 
Chairman, that we look at this not from the position of indictment, 
that we are accusatory or that we are not in sync with the mission that 
we are going forward on, but at the same time we should look for it in 
improvement.
  Let me share with my colleagues the words of Secretary Ridge and 
paraphrase him, that generally speaking, the way that we have been 
distributing funds of old does not help the present situation. The very 
fact that each State should get the same amount of money does not help 
us fight terrorism. Some States should get more money than others 
because they have been elevated to a higher risk of terrorism.
  So the reason why I believe it was worthy to have the debate that 
provided us the opportunity to discuss a different formula change is 
because, Mr. Chairman, it is crucial that this body does the right 
thing in securing the American people, and changing the formula would 
help us do the right thing. Getting the moneys in the hands of those 
first responders and others helps us do the right thing; and I would 
hope as our colleagues see this bill move forward, giving us more 
money, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has suggested that we 
do, in the right and fair way would help do the right thing.
  I ask my colleagues to consider these elements as we move forward.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 522. (a) None of the funds provided in this or 
     previous appropriation Acts may be obligated for testing 
     (other than simulations), deployment, or implementation of 
     CAPPS2, the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System 
     that the Transportation Security Administration (``TSA'') 
     plans to utilize to screen aviation passengers, until the 
     General Accounting Office has reported to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that--
       (1) a system of due process exists whereby aviation 
     passengers determined to pose a threat and either delayed or 
     prohibited from boarding their scheduled flights by the TSA 
     may appeal such decision and correct incorrect information 
     contained in CAPPS2;
       (2) the underlying error rate of the government and private 
     data bases that will be used both to establish identity and 
     assign a risk level to a passenger will not produce a large 
     number of false positives that will result in a significant 
     number of passengers being treated mistakenly or security 
     resources being diverted;
       (3) the TSA has stress-tested and demonstrated the efficacy 
     and accuracy of all search tools in CAPPS2 and has 
     demonstrated that CAPPS2 can make an accurate predictive 
     assessment of those passengers who would constitute a threat 
     to aviation;
       (4) the Secretary of Homeland Security has established an 
     internal oversight board to oversee and monitor the manner in 
     which CAPPS2 is being developed and prepared;
       (5) the TSA has built in sufficient operational safeguards 
     to reduce the opportunities for abuse;
       (6) substantial security measures are in place to protect 
     CAPPS2 from unauthorized access by hackers or other 
     intruders;
       (7) the TSA has adopted policies establishing effective 
     oversight of the use and operation of the system; and
       (8) there are no specific privacy concerns with the 
     technological architecture of the system.
       (b) Not later than December 31, 2003, the National Academy 
     of Sciences shall submit a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that assesses the likely impact of the CAPPS2 
     system on privacy and civil liberties and includes 
     recommendations for practices, procedures, regulations, or 
     legislation to eliminate or minimize adverse effect of such 
     system on privacy, discrimination, and other civil liberties.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against section 522.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 522 
on page 42, line 1, through page 43, line 24. This section violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI. It, in fact, changes existing law and, therefore, 
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the 
House rules.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I have assured the sponsor of this 
original provision, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), that the 
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will be adding a 
similar provision to our aviation security bill, H.R. 2144, during full 
committee markup tomorrow, Wednesday, and we will have similar 
language, and we do have the authority to authorize this language.
  Unfortunately, his language is authorizing on an appropriations 
measure; and therefore I raise that point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. SABO. It is sort of strange. Would the gentleman from Florida 
yield?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. SABO. In discussion of his point of order, we are trying to 
figure out how----
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair notes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota that under the rules of the House, debate on a point of order 
must be directed to the Chair, who hears each Member separately.
  Mr. SABO. Okay. Let me see if I figure out how we do this, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. I would note, just to help the gentleman 
with his dilemma, that others may be heard on it on their own time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I think I understand what the gentleman from 
Florida is saying is that he is raising a point of order against this 
provision because it is legislation on an appropriation bill. However, 
he is also telling me that the authorizing committee is meeting 
tomorrow and it is their intent to adopt provisions that are similar in 
substance to what is contained in

[[Page H5776]]

the language of the appropriations bill, which will then be amended in 
another bill.
  The gentleman from Minnesota would observe that, as he has read what 
is intended to be offered tomorrow, that in many ways it is similar and 
if that bill were before us we would not be subject to a point of 
order. However, the gentleman from Minnesota has also observed that 
some of the enforcement techniques within the proposed language are 
significantly weaker.
  I would observe that the proposal that the committee will be 
considering tomorrow leaves the responsibility for reviewing CAPPS2 
proposal internally in the Department while the language in question, 
which is subject to a point of order now, gives that responsibility to 
the GAO; and I would hope the gentleman from Florida would consider 
such language because frankly one of my concerns is the Department may 
not be equipped to make a good judgment.
  We, frankly, have watched an agency that has had a problem trying to 
figure out which of their own employees do or do not have criminal 
backgrounds, and we think it might be a significant advantage to have 
the GAO look at their proposed plans before they are implemented rather 
than waiting until a year after deployment and development of these 
plans to have a GAO study.

                              {time}  1745

  So I would urge the gentleman from Florida, as he ponders whether he 
should continue to press this point of order, that they might well 
consider expanding at an earlier stage the review of GAO of the pending 
plans of the agency.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Does any other Member wish to 
be heard?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, again, I think that the point of order that I 
raised clearly does demonstrate, in fact if we look at the language 
before us, that there is authorization language contained by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), which is excellent language and 
directive language but it does authorize on an appropriations measure, 
which is not allowed under the rules of the House.
  The gentleman has raised issues about the substance of what is 
proposed in the full committee markup, and we will address some of 
those, but we do have a provision and we clearly have under our charter 
the responsibility for legislating the procedure which is followed. We 
will have the Under Secretary directed to not implement, other than on 
a test basis, the CAPPS2 program until the Under Secretary provides to 
Congress a certification that certain steps are taken. And later on we 
will have, of course, a GAO review required under our measure.
  So we have the authority to the point of order clearly under the 
charter within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This 
is going to be considered under the FAA AIR-21 reauthorization. The 
security measure which is being considered, H.R. 2144, will be marked 
up tomorrow and blended into legislation which has already passed the 
House and, again, clearly under our authority as authorizers.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If no other Member wishes to be heard on 
the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that section 522 proposes explicitly to supersede 
existing law, most immediately by proposing to restrict funds that were 
appropriated in other acts. As such, it constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI, and the point of order is 
sustained. Section 522 is stricken from the bill.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayes

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes:
       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 the applicable provisions of the 
     Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken as to my support for this 
amendment, and if he so desires I would yield to my friend and 
cosponsor, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and 
I certainly appreciate the privilege of having my name associated with 
anything that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) does here.
  The Buy American provisions that we have talked about a lot in the 
past on this floor are very germane to this debate. I appreciate the 
fact that we can offer this amendment, hopefully without anyone raising 
a point of order against it, because it is essential that in this 
appropriations bill, as we prioritize the homeland security needs of 
the future, that we put all the language we can in the bill to 
encourage United States business and enterprise to produce and provide 
the goods and services that we need to secure our homeland.
  Let me give an example, one very large example. In this bill we 
actually fund into the future a program called BioShield, where the 
administration leads and we scrub and fund and hold the hearings on an 
effort to provide the stockpiles for vaccines and immunizations in the 
event that we are attacked. Companies all around the world make these 
products. But when we are talking about chelating agents that would 
actually provide relief and support to those people affected that we 
may stockpile in a dozen locations around the country in very large 
quantities, I want a United States manufacturer, if at all possible, to 
make those products, and I want those products stockpiled here in the 
United States, if at all possible.
  That is all that this language says, is that wherever we can we buy 
American for these products and services. And on this BioShield 
initiative in this bill, it is $5.6 billion over the next 10 years, 
including a 2004 appropriation, the coming year appropriation of $890 
million. That is a lot of money. It is a lot of procurement. It is very 
important that wherever we can we look to United States companies.
  Mr. Chairman, there are countries around the world that have not been 
particularly supportive of us in recent years that have the advanced 
capabilities of providing these products and services and goods from 
time to time. And we do not want to respond in a punitive way 
whatsoever. If they have the products, and we need them, and we have 
good relations, that is great. But what we want to say is there are 
businesses and workers and interests in this country that support our 
country with their taxes. We want to support them wherever we possibly 
can.
  That is the intent. That is the reality of this legislation. Many 
have come before us and attached Buy American amendments to a host of 
legislative matters, some big, some small, but I have to say, as we 
begin this new Department of Homeland Security, as we properly resource 
it, I cannot think of a more important issue that we attach Buy 
American provisions to than securing our homeland, to make sure that we 
actually control as much as possible what these products actually are, 
to make sure that they are what they say they are, and that we know 
what we are getting if an event happens once again.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I applaud the author, he and I are going in the 
same direction, and we have teamed up on this amendment.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his remarks, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), and I urge the support of others to keep America strong and to 
support our industrial defense base.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
         At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to approve, renew, or implement any aviation cargo 
     security plan that permits the transporting of unscreened or 
     uninspected cargo on passenger planes.

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I bring a very important subject to the 
attention of the Members of the House. Each

[[Page H5777]]

one of us, justifiably so, and every American, more than 100 million, 
who get onto planes in our country every year are now required to take 
their shoes off as they go through a process in an airport to ensure 
that no danger will befall the other passengers on that plane. Now, 
that is completely justifiable, and I think all Americans, well, almost 
all Americans, accept that now as part of the process of getting on any 
airplane in America since September 11.
  We in Boston, at Logan Airport, know the consequences, because two of 
the planes that were hijacked came from Boston, came from Logan 
Airport, and came from within five miles of my home. So my amendment 
today deals with the reality that after everyone's shoes have been 
inspected, bags have gone through security, and this is what the 
Transportation Security Administration now requires, after the booties 
of babies are taken off and inspected, underneath, on the same plane, 
on the same day, with the same passengers on board, with their shoes 
now back on after having been screened underneath the cargo, the cargo 
has not been screened.
  My amendment would require that the cargo that goes on the passenger 
planes that more than 100 million Americans each year fly is screened 
as well as the passengers themselves, as well as grandma, as well as 
the babies with their booties, because it is unfair to every American 
who gets on a plane to be put in danger that the cargo on that plane 
has not been screened.
  Now, what do we mean by screening? We mean the same level of physical 
inspection of passenger plane cargo as is applied to passenger plane 
luggage and to the passengers themselves. What do we not mean? We do 
not mean the Known Shipper Program, which is the current excuse for 
allowing commercial cargo to be carried on passenger planes without 
physical screening. And which technology will we use? We will use the 
same technology that American air carriers use to screen cargo in 
international airports every single day of the week all day long. Who 
will do the screening? The same screeners who are now being laid off, 
3,000 of them, 6,000 of them who are trained to do this job. We cannot 
allow this to go on any longer.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time the gentleman has 
left?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, 
which will require the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to 
develop a plan to screen or inspect all cargo that is carried on 
passenger planes.
  To me, it blows me away that we would allow any freight to go in the 
belly of an aircraft that has not been inspected. And at the very least 
the public has the right to know that basically 20 percent of the cargo 
in the belly of an aircraft is totally unscreened. Its cargo is 
unscreened. We could have not one, not two, not three, but we could 
have a number of planes knocked out of the sky at any one time simply 
because we are not inspecting the freight cargo that is in the belly of 
an aircraft.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back to my colleague and thank 
him for his amendment. I cannot think of a stronger and more important 
amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
and I urge support of the full House on as important an amendment as we 
are going to be called on to vote on this year in Congress.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. TSA 
currently screens cargo based on the Known Shipper Program and 
identifies potentially troublesome cargo by additional screening. By 
law, they are required to ensure adequate cargo security measures, but 
not 100 percent screening of air cargo. In essence, this amendment 
would stop airlines from loading cargo onto passenger aircraft until 
TSA can screen or inspect each individual piece.
  Now, in the bill, we already provide $50 million for the security of 
air cargo. This funding will do the following: It will develop an air 
cargo security program for domestic and foreign air cargo carriers. It 
will promote the development and implementation of a risk-based freight 
screening system that will identify pieces of cargo that require closer 
scrutiny and participation in the Known Shipper Program, including 
linkages with other databases to verify shipper information that is 
provided. We provide for development of state-of-the-art detection 
technologies that will screen cargo and also research and test devices 
that exist now and procedures to be applied to air cargo.

                              {time}  1800

  Right now, Mr. Chairman, it is not humanly possible to inspect every 
piece of cargo that goes onto the aircraft. TSA does not have the staff 
or technologies in place to do that. For example, airport screeners 
screen passengers and baggage using explosive detection and trace 
machines. These machines are not certified to screen cargo, nor can 
they handle the large pallets that cargo is typically shipped in. In 
these cases, the pallets would need to be broken apart and screened by 
hand. That is very time-consuming and labor intensive.
  In addition, in many cases cargo is sorted and prepared onto pallets 
at airport warehouses nowhere near the airports; and to implement this 
amendment, the cargo would need to be screened at these off-site 
locations. According to an analysis prepared by Battelle just prior to 
9-11, 100 percent screening of all cargo on passenger carriers would 
require at least $500 million in the first year alone. That includes 
procurement of equipment, installation, training, and staffing. It 
would require 7,800 employees, which would include 6,600 screeners and 
1,100 supervisors. If we adopt this amendment, TSA would need to hire a 
substantial number of new staff to inspect cargo and install new 
technologies at all of these warehouses.
  Even if there was sufficient funding in the bill, which there is not, 
it is not logistically possible to have all of these screeners and 
technologies in place by the beginning of the fiscal year. TSA is 
currently in compliance with the Transportation Security Act, which 
requires TSA to provide adequate security measures for air cargo. The 
law does not require every piece to be screened or inspected, as this 
amendment would. We do not require every piece of cargo that goes onto 
a ship be screened when it is loaded onto a ship or before it is off-
loaded. Instead, DHS targets what cargo pieces need to be more closely 
inspected based on intelligence and innovations such as the advanced 
manifests that we now require.
  By adopting this amendment, TSA would have to refuse to allow 
airlines to transport any cargo until all of it can be screened, and I 
would point out that the money-strapped airlines would be sorely tried 
trying to do this, and it would greatly impact their bottom line.
  Currently, the only cargo airlines can ship on passenger planes is 
from a known shipper. They cannot, for example, ship any mail above 16 
ounces because the shippers may not be known.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I understand the obvious meaning of the amendment. 
I appreciate the concern the gentleman has. We have tried to address 
that in the bill with $50 million to begin to address the problem. To 
adopt this kind of a drop-dead provision would mean chaos in the 
airlines. It would not substantially increase the security that is now 
ongoing in loading cargo onto planes. The Known Shipper Program is 
reliable. It is working, and while we spend the $50 million this coming 
year to begin to try to get the machines and technology in place to be 
able to screen, as we do, container freight in most cases, this money 
should be sufficient for that purpose. So I would urge defeat of the 
amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Markey amendment, and that issue 
is the glaring hole that remains in our airline security. It is a 
shocking realization for most Americans to learn that almost fully half 
of the cargo that is in the hold of an air passenger plane when they 
get on a plane to go on vacation or work travel, that almost half of 
that cargo is commercial cargo that is

[[Page H5778]]

never screened by anyone for explosives.
  That is a massive failure in our airline security. Some months ago I 
introduced the Airline Cargo Security Act modeled after legislation by 
Senators Feinstein and Hutchison which would require the TSA to adopt 
comprehensive measures to inspect airline cargo. It gives the TSA 
flexibility to use a variety of different methods to accomplish this, 
from new technologies to blast-proof containers, to a database of known 
shippers; but it requires that the job get done. The airline industry 
is hanging by a slender thread. Terrorists do not have to hijack our 
airplanes any more to wreak chaos on this industry and wreak 
devastation on this country and our economy. They just have to blow a 
plane out of the sky. Given the fact that so much of the cargo is not 
screened for anything, this is tragically too easy to accomplish. This 
has to change. This has to change.
  It is hard to overstate the significance and the disparity of this 
security problem. All of us have had the experience of going through 
the airport now and having to take our belt and shoes off and remove 
the toenail clippers from our carry-on luggage, but imagine the fact 
that in the hold of that plane are huge containers which have not been 
inspected by anyone. And when we consider the security lapses in 
shipping that cargo, the opportunities when that freight is forwarded 
to include explosive or other dangerous materials in that cargo, it is 
extraordinary.
  Indeed, I think most Americans would find it baffling that we go 
through these personally intrusive measures when we go to the airport, 
but our cargo goes through nothing. We cannot fight the last battle; we 
cannot simply predict that terrorists are going to use the same 
technique they used before. We have to be forward-thinking and 
recognize that there are wholesale gaps in what we are doing to protect 
the American people. I applaud my colleague for raising this issue in 
this legislation. I want to urge my colleagues both here today and in 
the future to address the issue of cargo security. Let us not wait for 
a tragedy to awaken us to this problem.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to note in the Obey amendment, which the 
House was not allowed to vote on today, we would have added $150 
million for airline security, including an additional $50 million for 
this very project, doubling what the committee has in its bill.
  The problem that we have is that the known-shipper system is simply a 
trust-the-luck system based on what we know about shippers and the 
people who work for them. Our concern is about what we do not know. We 
have just seen that TSA had a very difficult time in doing the 
background screening for criminal activity before they hired a number 
of people, and those people had to be let go. We really do not have any 
way of knowing what is happening within the businesses of the people 
who are shipping. It just seems to me that this amendment is eminently 
prudent and should be adopted.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me say, and I do not say this out of 
formality but because I believe it deeply, that the chairman of the 
subcommittee has crafted a good bill, and this is the first bill on 
homeland security, and I applaud the gentleman for his tremendous 
efforts and work; but he has given us an opportunity to discuss 
something which has troubled me deeply.
  I chair the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on 
Government Reform. We learned clearly before September 11 of the 
terrorist threat. We knew it was a new threat, and we knew that we 
needed to develop a strategy to confront it and to reorganize our 
government; and we are in that process. But what blew me away when we 
debated the Aviation Security Act was the fact that I had always 
thought that we screened all of the luggage put in the belly of the 
airplane by passengers.
  We put an amendment on the bill in 2001 that said by the end of 2003 
we would have to search all baggage. We finally got it included in the 
bill, even though the Inslee amendment was not made in order. It was 
put in as a manager's amendment, but people said we could not do it by 
the end of 2003. Then when the bill came back from the Senate and we 
had our conference bill, it said by the end of 2002.
  I thought, ``If we could not do it then by 2003, how can we do it by 
the end of 2002?'' And what I was told was that we really do not want 
people to know that we cannot secure the aircraft from explosives, so 
that is what they did. We had to amend the bill eventually and say we 
would have adequate security measures.
  Mr. Chairman, the definition of adequate security measures includes 
machinery we do not have yet, dogs that we are using, swabs on the 
outside of luggage, and then hand searches. The bottom line is even the 
passenger baggage on aircraft is not fully checked for explosives. And 
then we learn to compound that, we have the cargo holds. Cargo that is 
put in the belly of a passenger aircraft is not checked, and it is just 
wrong.
  We cannot say that we have adequate security measures to inspect 
cargo. We do not. It is a fraud. Maybe the chairman is right that this 
is an amendment that is going to be a problem, and maybe when we get to 
conference we will have to find a better way to deal with it, but we 
have to send a message.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), and I know it is a difficult job that he has; but there are 
two programs in America. One is the known-tripper program. We are all 
part of the known-tripper program. Every American that gets on a plane 
is part of a known-tripper program. They want to know who you are. You 
have to show your ID. They are going to check you if you are 
suspicious. They are going to go through your bags. They do now care 
who you are, baby or grandmother.
  The known-shipper program for cargo, on the other hand, going onto 
the very same place, only requires a piece of paper. They do not know 
what warehouse it really came from.
  That al Qaeda operative that just got arrested last week ran a cargo 
firm. When he was interviewed, he said he was working with other 
people. He said the name of the firm was Kashmir, Kashmir Service. It 
was his own trucking company, a cargo firm. That is something we cannot 
run the risk of happening in this country. They have to go through the 
same screening for biological, chemical, and nuclear material that 
would go on a plane as every one of us on a known-tripper program has 
to go through. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is right, we 
cannot afford not to pay the price. It might cost us some money, but 
America cannot afford not to pay it. It cannot be allowed to occur.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is a plane could be blown 
out of the sky from explosives in the belly of an aircraft because 
someone shipping cargo is simply able to get it on the airplane. We 
have learned from the terrorists there is no line they will not cross. 
I hope this amendment is passed; and then if we have to change the 
amendment, we can do that in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will 
require the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to develop a 
plan to screen or inspect all cargo that is carried on passenger 
planes.
  Since September 11, our nation's homeland defenses have undergone 
tremendous improvements. I truly believe we are safer today than we 
were prior to these heinous attacks, but we don't feel safer because we 
had a false sense of security that was cruelly lifted.
  In 2001, when Congress was considering the Aviation Security Act, I 
was shocked to learn that less than 10 percent of checked baggage on 
domestic flights was being screened. I worked with Congressman Jay 
Inslee to add a provision to the bill requiring all checked baggage to 
be screened for explosives.
  During a recent hearing of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, 
I was equally surprised to learn that air, which accounts for 
approximately 22 percent of all baggage on passenger flights, is not 
being screened for explosives. If we are not screening all the baggage 
and cargo on passenger planes, then we are once again giving the 
American people a false sense of security.
  The bottom line is as long as cargo and baggage screening is 
incomplete, there are

[[Page H5779]]

gaps in aviation security that are unacceptable. TSA must come to grips 
with this challenge, which continues to leave too many air travelers at 
risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this common-
sense amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think all of us have made it very clear that our 
efforts are to support the work of this appropriations subcommittee. 
But, Mr. Chairman, I rise in tribute, in remembrance of the many lives 
that have been lost through terrorist acts in the United States. It 
precedes the horrific tragedy of 9-11. I am particularly cognizant of 
the 1988 Pan Am 103 plane crash where an interline bag was the cause of 
that horrific tragedy where so many families lost their loved ones.
  We know that we have come a long way from that tragedy. Our bags are 
in fact screened and unaccompanied bags are screened. But when we began 
this journey and we began to tell our airports and our airlines that 
they were going to have to haul in this enormous equipment and make 
sure that every bag was screened, what an uproar. Nobody thought it 
could happen. Nobody thought we would be successful. It would take too 
long. There would be backlogs.

                              {time}  1815

  Yes, it is an inconvenience; but we have done it, and every airport 
to a certain extent is working toward that goal. At our large airports 
we have these huge machines that our bags must go through. Why, then, 
Mr. Chairman, can we do any less or should we do any less for cargo, 
because as we have determined in our field visits, the same kind of 
activity is occurring in our ports, where in many instances we are 
checking paperwork and we are looking at paperwork given to us by 
foreign entities. Oh, yes, we do have criteria. Our intelligence 
gathering has improved. We are looking at different marks that staff 
and personnel can check off. When one mark does not come up, they say, 
this is suspicious and they put them in a different category. We are 
doing a better job. But I think this amendment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) is a sensible, reasonable approach that may be inconvenient, may 
seem like a high mountain to climb; but in the long run we will be able 
to not only pay tribute and mourn the loss of those who over the years 
have died in terrorist attacks and in particular the Pan Am 103, which 
in my community we lost an endeared family member, we will be able to 
assure that we have done as much as we could do in that area.
  That is why I think this is an important amendment, recognizing the 
hard work of this committee and the efforts that have already been 
made, but I clearly believe that our work is not complete. We mourn the 
loss of the Pan Am 103 and other tragic acts. Pan Am 103 was a suitcase 
that was unaccompanied, before our knowledge reached the sophistication 
of terrorists. Now we cannot speculate what cargo might contribute to 
some unfortunate and tragic act. Let us be proactive and get in front 
of this question and help the committee in the way that we could and 
can help it, and, that is, to look favorably on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. But what I want to 
say more than anything else is that I think that those of us who serve 
in this Chamber deserve to tell the American people the truth. I 
believe that most moms and dads who get on an airplane and this summer 
when they take their families on vacations and they get on an airplane, 
they believe that those of us who serve in this Chamber have taken the 
necessary steps to see that they are not blown out of the sky as a 
result of a bomb being placed in cargo that is on that plane. I think 
most Americans think we are already doing this.
  We want the airlines to succeed. We have given billions of dollars in 
aid to the airline industry. Can you imagine what will happen to 
passenger travel in this country if an airplane is blown out of our sky 
this summer with vacationers, travelers, businesspeople on it? This is 
something that we have got to face up to.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I and others stood on 
this floor months ago when we argued night after night after night that 
there needed to be complete screening and inspection of everything that 
went onto an airplane. The American people heard that, and I think most 
of them agreed with us. But for us to say we cannot do it because we do 
not have the money is a hollow argument. We find money around here for 
everything we think is important. Everything that we truly believe is 
important, that is of value to us, we fund. It ought to be a value to 
make sure that those who travel on our aircraft can do so with the 
confidence that we have done everything humanly possible to protect 
them.
  It is beyond me why we would not embrace this amendment. It is just 
beyond me. I hope we do not have to stand here in this Chamber at some 
time in the future and talk in somber tones about those who have lost 
their lives to a terrorist act when we could have taken an action that 
prevented that terrible tragedy from happening.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits any funds 
from the Homeland Security appropriation from being used to approve a 
security plan that permits the transporting of unscreened or 
uninspected cargo on passenger planes.
  Air cargo is a potential area of vulnerability in our aviation 
security system.
  In the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Congress moved to 
ensure that all checked baggage was screened for explosives. But carry-
on baggage and air cargo is still not screened for bombs, at least not 
the plastic explosives that terrorists tend to use. However, carry-on 
baggage is screened by x-ray, and air cargo is screened by the ``known 
shipper program.'' In both areas, we could do better and I appreciate 
the efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts to do so.
  I am concerned that this amendment could be misinterpreted as 
requiring that all air cargo be put through an explosive detection 
system or be opened and physically inspected. If the plain language of 
the amendment required that, I would oppose it. That is clearly 
impractical, if not impossible. Currently, there are no machines large 
enough and quick enough to screen all air cargo in this way. And 
physical inspection is so cumbersome that it would grind our economy to 
a halt. This would be a particular problem in my State of Alaska, where 
the people are especially dependent on air cargo for obtaining 
necessary goods and service.
  However, the amendment simply prohibits any funds from being spent to 
approve an airline security plan unless that plan provides that air 
cargo will be screened. Such screening is currently being done through 
the known shipper program and I would expect that to continue. Over 
time, new technology may enable us to improve air cargo screening and I 
would support the use of such technology as long as it would not impede 
the flow of air commerce.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
       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 by the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into a 
     contract for the procurement of manufactured articles, 
     materials, or supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 10a) is applied to such procurement by 
     substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially 
     all''.

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order 
against the gentleman's amendment because it proposes to impose new 
duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and 
therefore violates clause 2(c) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia raises a point of order. Is

[[Page H5780]]

there further discussion on the point of order?
  Mr. MANZULLO. My understanding is that the gentleman was going to 
reserve a point of order so I could get my point across.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I reserve the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves the point of 
order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would also reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin also reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the American economy is in the midst of a 
manufacturing crisis. Over the past 3 years, we have lost 2.6 million 
manufacturing jobs. In the past 12 months, 53,000 manufacturing jobs 
each month have been lost in this country. These are good-paying jobs. 
Small business manufacturers pay on average 20 percent more to their 
employees than other small businesses and provide a vast majority of 
the basic products such as tools, dies and molds that are essential to 
our national security and essential to our defense industrial base.
  In 1981, Rockford, Illinois, my district's largest city, had an 
unemployment rate of 24.9 percent, the highest in the Nation. Today it 
is around 11 percent. I do not want to see a recurrence of what 
happened in 1981. But we are losing our industrial base in this 
country. Unlike the past when factories were closed during an economic 
downturn but reopened when times improved, today a too-frequent outcome 
is the permanent closure of the factory. The jobs leave forever. Young 
people entering the workforce do not have a manufacturing career choice 
left open to them as they did in the past.
  Since 1933, the Buy American Act has safeguarded the interests of 
American manufacturers by requiring the Federal Government to purchase 
domestically produced products. But that only means 50.001 percent has 
to be American goods. The Department of Labor's May employment report 
showed again the 34th consecutive month of loss of manufacturing jobs.
  Let me tell my colleagues what happened in Rockford, Illinois. After 
112 years in business, Ingersoll Milling ceased operations. The 
Rockford machine tool maker was one of only two companies to make 
machines to shape radar absorbent composites into the skin of stealthy 
warplanes. In bankruptcy, a Chinese state-owned enterprise is trying to 
buy Ingersoll. The only plant that is left in the United States is in 
Kentucky and that is Cincinnati Machine. They have just downsized from 
750 people to 350 people. We are losing the ability to have 
manufacturing facilities to defend the United States. The purpose of 
this amendment is to build that manufacturing core to say, wake up, 
Washington, wake up, America, the manufacturing jobs are gone, the 
security of our Nation is being imperiled.
  This amendment simply increases the Buy American content from 50 
percent to 65 percent. It is so simple. The money that is being used to 
protect America, we are only asking 65 cents of that be used to buy 
American products. This is a very simple amendment. We would ask that 
this body take its part in restoring American manufacturing in this 
country. I would urge my colleagues, urge them, beg them, beseech them, 
to adopt this amendment to help the restoration of our manufacturing 
base.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Actually, this amendment would radically change the current 
application of the Buy American Act from 50 percent to include products 
made in America even if most of the cost of the components, up to 65 
percent, are produced domestically. This substantially increases the 50 
percent test as provided in the current regulations.
  Some companies have responded to the current Buy American Act 
restrictions by establishing costly, labor-intensive product-tracking 
systems that are not needed in the commercial business to ensure that 
the products are being sold to government. In a few cases, companies 
have simply stopped selling certain products in the Federal 
marketplace. This denies our government access to some of the latest, 
most cost-effective products in our fight against terrorism and 
preserving homeland security. This radical Buy American Act if it were 
allowed to be part of this legislation would impose financial and legal 
burdens on taxpayers and the commercial companies that sell to the 
Department.
  I would, therefore, insist on my point of order.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Do the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin insist upon their points of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply agree with the point of order 
lodged by the gentleman. I do not happen to have much of a problem with 
the substance; but it seems to me that if the rules are to be applied 
around here, they ought to be applied to everybody on both sides of the 
aisle.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members desiring recognition?
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed for five minutes. The point 
of order is reserved.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the Raleigh News & Observer headline 
this past Sunday said, ``North Carolina's Trade Deficit Soars: 
Manufacturing Slide Continues Despite Decline in Dollar.'' One in four 
North Carolinians employed in manufacturing have lost their jobs during 
the past 5 years. Plants across the State are closing their doors 
entirely, and other firms are moving jobs offshore, truthfully mostly 
to China.
  North Carolina's 10th Congressional District has a disproportionately 
large percentage of local economies built on manufacturing. So the 
communities I represent are struggling even more due to this 
manufacturing recession. The National Association of Manufacturers 
reports that job losses will continue as long as U.S. imports from 
China are six times as large as exports to China. These statistics 
highlight why I have become a strong proponent of the newly formed 
Defense Industrial Base Caucus.
  The U.S. cannot be reliant on foreign manufacturers of military or 
homeland security systems and equipment. We have got to invest in 
critical industries where we do not have the capacity for self-
sufficiency and purchase goods from those United States sectors that 
are the best in the world. A recent admission from the Pentagon 
underscores the need for the U.S. to regain its manufacturing self-
sufficiency. The Swiss Government's refusal to provide crucial bomb 
components during Operation Iraqi Freedom could have hampered our 
efforts in the fight effectively if the war had lasted a little longer. 
We cannot afford to be hamstrung by countries that disagree with our 
intentions and our goals as we defend the homeland.
  The U.S. makes the best products in the world. We have got to provide 
jobs for the American people. There is no better place to demonstrate 
that commitment than providing our first responders with American-made 
products, procured with taxpayers' dollars.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is reserved. The 
gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the point of order and 
in support of the amendment. My concern is that the American Government 
be as concerned about homeland security as we should be about household 
security. When tax dollars are taken from the American people, from the 
entrepreneurs and the people who create wealth in this country, those 
tax dollars should not be used by their government to put them out of 
work or to decimate our manufacturing base. I believe that this is a 
reasonable amendment, and I wholeheartedly support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Virginia advise if he insists 
upon his point of order and state the grounds for his point of order?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Again, I make the point of order because it proposes to impose new 
duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and 
violates clause 2(c) of House rule XXI.

[[Page H5781]]

                              {time}  1830

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that 
this amendment explicitly supersedes existing law and the amendment 
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. 
Therefore, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in 
order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would challenge the ruling of the Chair.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to table.
  The CHAIRMAN. The motion to table is not available in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
judgment of the Committee?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, is this motion debatable?
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is debatable under the five-minute rule.
  Mr. OBEY. Then could I move to strike the last word?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge the gentleman to withdraw 
his motion. I know of no one who disagrees with the ruling of the 
Chair, and I do not see why we should impose on the House when we 
already have seen another amendment dealt with on the subject in a 
proper manner. This amendment clearly was not. Everyone knew it was not 
in order, and there is no doubt in my mind the Chair's ruling is 
correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the Committee?
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 385, 
noes 28, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               AYES--385

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     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 (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--28

     Alexander
     Baca
     Baird
     Ballance
     Boswell
     Costello
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Green (TX)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kucinich
     McDermott
     Menendez
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Pastor
     Sanders
     Scott (VA)
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bonilla
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burr
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cubin
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     English
     Gephardt
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Keller
     Kleczka
     Moran (KS)
     Paul
     Reyes
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Wynn


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on this 
vote.

                              {time}  1858

  Messrs. SANDERS, BACA, TOWNS, and GREEN of Texas changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HART, Ms. HARMAN, Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD, and Messrs. INSLEE, 
ACKERMAN and HAYES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1900


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

       Sec.    . The Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop 
     measures to simplify and expedite the grant allocation 
     process of the Department of Homeland Security so that a 
     percentage of funds is provided directly to fire departments 
     in urban and rural areas, police departments, law enforcement 
     agencies, hazardous materials teams, emergency medical staff, 
     and other first responders, hospital districts, school 
     districts, city and county governments, non-profit 
     organizations, port and airport security, and citizen corps 
     groups in the 10 cities most vulnerable to terrorist attacks, 
     without the funds being first allocated to State government 
     agencies.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (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 gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.

[[Page H5782]]

  The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as we have been proceeding 
with this debate, I think we have been on common ground that the 
security of America's homeland has to be our first priority. Many of us 
have agreed with the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), that a billion dollars needed to be added to the Homeland 
Security appropriations to be able to give and free the hands of the 
appropriators on the many, many needs that are facing our Nation. But 
there is another issue, Mr. Chairman, that I think is crucial for us to 
be able to address directly: The needs of our neighborhoods, and let me 
share them with you.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment specifically and particularly isolates the 
crux of the problems that I have heard from many, many local 
communities. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in a hearing with Secretary Brown, 
an Assistant Secretary under the Homeland Security Department, in his 
energetic testimony he acknowledged the importance of involving the 
local community in their own security.
  I do not know if many of my colleagues are aware that in the Homeland 
Security authorizing legislation there are the concepts called citizen 
corps. These are organizations that are resident in our respective 
communities, engaging neighborhoods, towns, cities and rural areas in 
their own security. But yet there is no funding for those particular 
entities. This amendment simplifies or asks that the process of getting 
funds to our local entities be expedited so that a percentage of funds 
be provided directly to fire departments in urban and rural areas, 
police departments, law enforcement agencies, hazardous material teams, 
emergency medical staff, and other first responders, hospital 
districts, school districts, city and county governments, nonprofit 
organizations, port and airport security and citizen corps groups in 
the 10 cities most vulnerable to terrorist acts.
  Let me share with you, Mr. Chairman, testimony from Noel Cunningham 
in our field hearing just this past weekend, the Chief of the Port 
Police of the Port of Los Angeles. His words can apply to ports all 
over the Nation, but also to communities all over the Nation.
  Since 9/11 we have spent approximately $6 million of our own funds to 
enhance port security. We have added staffing and equipment resources 
for our port police. What they actually need, Mr. Chairman, is they 
need resources to help us, if you will, for their personnel. That is 
one of the things that we heard, that buying equipment, which is some 
of the limiting requirements of grants, is not their only need. They 
need it for personnel and we have not been able to provide monies for 
personnel.
  As a central component to the Nation's economic engine, we need to 
receive a reasonable and appropriate share of the Federal port security 
funding. That is another comment from Chief Cunningham. So my amendment 
would simply provide an expedited way to get monies into homeland 
security.
  I had another amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I had discussed in the 
rules, and that is to make sure that no monies are spent as an abuse of 
power at the Homeland Security Department. That is, of course, whether 
you think it is humorous that 55 Democrats in Texas ran away to avoid a 
quorum, they used their constitutional rights. I am sorry that that 
amendment could not be brought up today, and that is an amendment that 
says we limit the use of the Homeland Security funds for any 
surveillance or tracking of individuals not related to homeland 
security. I am going to continue to work on that issue because it is a 
crucial issue.
  But on this matter I would like to pose a question to the chairman of 
the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as it relates 
to the question of working with local communities to get resources 
directly in their hands, first responders, port and airport security, 
the citizen corps group, though we know that they are not necessarily 
funded but working with civic clubs on getting resources, when I say 
civic clubs, civic communities, county and city governments to get 
funds directly in their hands so that neighborhoods and communities can 
be safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  We have provisions in this bill that requires that the State to whom 
we give the money must send the money on to the localities within 30 
days, and then 80 percent of the monies that we give to those States 
must be passed on to local units of government within 60 days. Those 
are provisions in our bill that we added in an attempt to force the 
money quickly to the community.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's response.
  What I would like to be able to say to this body is that even as we 
give those instructions to the State, what I am finding out by our 
local responders, and I use that term broadly, but our community, local 
community interests who have the responsibility for securing the 
neighborhoods, the neighborhoods that are around ports, the 
neighborhoods that are around refineries, the neighborhoods that are in 
dangerous high terrorist vulnerable areas is that the processes are so 
difficult.
  I hope that this body can work through the process that we will be 
able to provide a less complicated process and expedite the application 
process so that our local communities, civic clubs and all will be able 
to have the resources they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, the Department 
of Homeland Security appropriations bill and I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  The purpose of this amendment is to expedite and simplify the grant 
application process so that needed homeland security funds go directly 
to first responders, local districts, and local government agencies, 
without first going to the States.
  The efforts to secure our homeland will occur at the local level. 
City and county fire departments, police departments, hazardous 
materials teams, and other first responders will need to be well-
equipped to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks. In our 
efforts to fund our local first responders Congress has authorized and 
appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars. However, few of those 
dollars have made it to the hands of local first responders.
  I participated in two hearings last week with representatives of 
government agencies who confirmed that funds are not getting to 
America's local first responders. First, at a hearing of the full 
Select Committee on Homeland Security, Undersecretary Mike Brown of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland 
Security said that delays getting funds to local first responders and 
civic groups persist. During on-site reviews last weekend, Chief 
Cunningham of the Los Angeles Port Authority confirmed that few, if 
any, federal homeland security dollars are reaching first responders.
  One reason for the delay is that often funds appropriated to city and 
county agencies for homeland security initiatives, through a lengthy 
application process, must first be disbursed to the States. State 
governments then have their own grant application process for funds 
disbursed by the Department of Homeland Security. This unnecessary 
application process preventing local communities from finalizing the 
preparations for dealing with terrorist attacks and is endangering our 
citizens.
  I propose this amendment to the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill to disburse a percentage of the funds directly to 
local homeland security organizations in those cities, including 
Houston, that were deemed more vulnerable to a terrorist attack by 
Secretary Tom Ridge. This amendment will allow local organizations 
engaged in homeland security to get funds now.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will enable many communities to prepare 
for terrorist attack without further unnecessary delay. This amendment 
protects America's citizens and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.

Amendment to Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2004 Offered by Ms. 
                          Jackson-Lee of Texas

       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title) insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for political purposes or any other purpose not 
     related to protecting homeland security, including for--
       (1) use of the surveillance powers of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, for a purpose not related to protecting 
     homeland security, to--
       (A) tap personal or business telephones; or
       (B) otherwise monitor or record conversations or activity 
     in any home, office, or other location; or

[[Page H5783]]

       (2) use of the investigative powers of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, for a purpose not related to protecting 
     homeland security, to track automobiles, airplanes, or other 
     modes of transportation.

  Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, The Department 
of Homeland Security appropriations bill and I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  This amendment prohibits the use of funds made available to the 
Department of Homeland Security through this act from being used for 
political purposes, or other purposes not related to protecting 
homeland security.
  In the course of the recent redistricting controversy in Texas, 
several allegations of misuse of resources of the Department of 
Homeland Security surfaced. Specifically, there were reports that the 
Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center, which is staffed by 
employees of the Department of Homeland Security, received a telephone 
call asking the Coordination Center to locate a particular aircraft 
that belonged to former Texas House Speaker Pete Laney. There were also 
allegations that surveillance was conducted on private and business 
phones, and that the Department of Homeland Security was involved with 
the Texas Department of Public Safety in the destruction of documents 
related to the redistricting controversy.
  The use of Department of Homeland Security resources for political 
purposes endangers the lives of American citizens. While hundreds of 
millions of dollars are authorized and appropriated to protect our 
homeland, every one of those dollars is needed if America is to be 
protected from terrorist attacks. The police departments, fire 
departments, emergency medical staffs, hazardous materials teams, and 
other first responders across the country are in dire need of equipment 
and operational funds. Every available dollar appropriated for Homeland 
Security should be used for homeland security initiatives.
  My amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
bill will insure that funds are not misused for political purposes or 
other purposes not related to homeland security. My amendment will also 
ensure that the wasteful, political use of funds that occurred in Texas 
last month does not occur in other cities.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a non-partisan proposal that will 
protect the constituents of every member of this committee, and every 
Member of the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support 
my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman state his point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Does the gentlewoman have a statement she 
would care to make in regard to the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members wishing to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw this 
amendment, but let me just simply say very briefly that our 
responsibility is to ensure the homeland, and I, in my advocacy, 
believe that is the neighborhood.
  I would like to work with the chairman in respect of this point of 
order on getting rid of the red tape that is also bogging down the 
State system so that monies can get, as I said, to the hazardous 
material teams, the emergency medical staff, the first responders, 
hospital districts, school districts in a fast and efficient way.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, that we can manage to unstrap these local 
communities from using these funds for equipment only but can use it 
for personnel. I hope that we can work together to ensure that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to withdraw this particular amendment as it 
is subject to a point of order at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman asks to withdraw her amendment.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Baldwin

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Baldwin:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used to enter into any contract to develop, lease, 
     or procure Coast Guard vessels in the National Security 
     Cutter class or Offshore Patrol Cutter class unless the main 
     propulsion diesel engines are manufactured in the United 
     States by a domestically operated entity. The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may waive the restriction in the preceding 
     sentence on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that--
       (1) adequate amounts of such components are not available 
     from a domestically operated entity to meet requirements on a 
     timely basis;
       (2) such a contract is necessary to acquire capability for 
     national security purposes; or
       (3) there exists a significant cost or quality difference 
     between components manufactured in the United States and 
     components manufactured outside the United States.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) is recognized for 5 
minutes on her amendment.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would prohibit 
funds from being used to enter into any contract to develop, lease or 
procure Coast Guard vessels in the National Security Cutter Class or 
Offshore Patrol Cutter Class of ships unless the main diesel engines 
are manufactured in the United States.
  The Coast Guard's Deepwater program is a large acquisition effort to 
replace and modernize the aging fleet of the Coast Guard ships. I fully 
support this program. However, when procuring the most critical 
components of these ships, the main propulsion engines, I believe the 
Coast Guard should contract with American firms that make the engines 
here in the United States.
  The Department of Defense in many instances already must contract 
with firms that produce their components here in America. Because the 
Coast Guard was previously under the Department of Transportation and 
is now under the Department of Homeland Security, it has not been 
subject to these domestic manufactured provisions for components. I 
believe our government should contract with American firms whenever 
possible. The Federal Government is one of the largest customers in the 
world. Using American labor can help get our economy back on track. But 
in particular, in matters of national security, we should ensure that 
American workers build what we need to keep America safe.
  After September 11, we tragically learned that Americans were not as 
safe, even on our own soil, as we had once thought. The Coast Guard's 
mission has increased exponentially since that awful day. In this 
uncertain time and as we have experienced shifting global alliance, it 
makes no sense to allow foreign nations to build critical component for 
large Coast Guard vessels. After all, the Coast Guard is now in the 
Department of Homeland Security, and is not keeping capable, hard 
working Americans working the essence of homeland security?
  I have a firm in my district that produces these engines. They were 
ready to start filling orders tomorrow. They competed in the first 
round of Deepwater engine contracts awarded earlier this year. Even 
though they can prove that their engines would cost less in total 
operating costs, the Coast Guard gave the contract to a German firm 
that will now build engines in their homeland. And so that Members 
understand that this is not strictly a local issue for me, there are 
several other firms in the United States that stand ready to compete 
for these contracts and are perfectly capable of producing quality 
American-made engines for the Coast Guard.
  I have often visited the employees of the plant in my district. They 
are confused and frustrated. They do not understand why a branch of the 
Armed Services would choose to give a major contract to a foreign 
competitor. Although their plant is operational, there are many workers 
who are currently laid off. The workers that I talk to are not only 
worried for themselves and their families, they are desperately worried 
about their buddies who are waiting, waiting for the call that tells 
them to come back to work so they will be able to support their 
families once again.
  Mr. Chairman, we are bleeding good-paying, family-supporting 
manufacturing jobs in this country. When manufacturing jobs go away, 
our history shows us that it is very hard to get

[[Page H5784]]

them back. My amendment is a small but needed change to the current 
Coast Guard procurement process.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, has reserved a point of order against this amendment. The 
gentleman has a choice. He can insist and press on with his point of 
order and continue funneling good paying jobs overseas or he can allow 
this amendment to go forward as we just did a short while ago with the 
amendment presented by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). I 
hope that he has the best interest of America's working families at 
heart.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has yielded back.
  Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) insist upon his point 
of order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to the amendment which I believe 
is nothing more than a blatant attempt to use the legislative process 
to give one American company an unfair competitive advantage over 
another American company. It is wrong and should be defeated.
  The amendment seems innocent enough. No funds should be used to 
procure Coast Guard vessels in the National Security Cutter Class or 
Offshore Patrol Cutter Class unless the main propulsion diesel engines 
are manufactured in the U.S. by a domestically operated entity.
  Now, that sounds just like a restatement of the Buy American Act, but 
it is not. The Buy American Act does not consider the nationality of 
the contractor when determining if a product is of domestic origin. 
Manufactured articles are considered domestic if they have been 
manufactured in the U.S. from components ``substantially all,'' quote, 
of which have been mined, produced or manufactured in the U.S.

                              {time}  1915

  ``Substantially all'' means that the cost of foreign components does 
not exceed 50 percent of the cost of components.
  Now, when the Coast Guard wants to purchase diesel engines for its 
ships, it has two options, Detroit Diesel in Michigan, Utah, Kansas and 
I believe Ohio, and Fairbanks Morse Engine in Wisconsin. Both are fine 
companies that manufacture their engines in the U.S. with components, 
substantially all of which come from the U.S. as well. They both comply 
with the Buy American Act, creating a healthy competition for the Coast 
Guard's contracts, which I think we would all agree is a good thing; 
but it seems that some people do not want competition.
  Detroit Diesel is a subsidiary of that German company Daimler 
Chrysler, which is based in Germany, while Fairbanks Morse Engine is 
based in the U.S. and notably I believe only in Wisconsin.
  The current procurement program for the Coast Guard Deepwater 
program, for which these engines will be built, is already under way. 
If this amendment were to be signed into law, Detroit Diesel will no 
longer be eligible for Coast Guard contracts because it is not a 
domestically operated entity.
  Fairbanks Morse Engine will corner the market, not because it builds 
better diesel engines than Detroit Diesel, but because it found a way 
to shut out the competition; and it will have done so by changing the 
rules in the middle of the game.
  There are 5,000 Americans working in those four States for Detroit 
Diesel. They build diesel engines that the current law says are 
American products. These Americans should not be penalized because 
their parent company is based in another country. Congress should not 
even be involved in this issue.
  This amendment is frankly outrageous. It is not our job to give one 
American company a competitive advantage over another, and I obviously 
implore my colleagues to not be fooled by what seems to be an innocuous 
amendment, but there are 5,000 Americans who work for Detroit Diesel 
who are waiting and depending on us and the Members of this body.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I rise in support of the gentleman's point of order. This amendment 
would apply a radical domestic source restriction to the acquisition of 
main propulsion diesel engines for use in Coast Guard vessels, and my 
friend from Michigan just said, in the middle of the game. It could 
delay this procurement.
  This could have a devastating effect on the Coast Guard's ability to 
buy the best propulsion engines at reasonable cost to support its 
critical antiterror missions because it takes competition out of the 
picture. Restrictive provisions such as these run counter to efforts to 
create an open, flexible, responsive, and impartial competitive 
acquisition system that will enable all government agencies, including 
the Coast Guard, to acquire from the world market the best products 
available at fair and reasonable prices. Indeed, we owe our taxpayers 
nothing less than to get the best value for the taxpayer dollar as we 
buy these, and this amendment abrogates that Buy America Act provisions 
apply here.
  It has been reiterated here by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hayes) that this amendment would impose substantially new duties on the 
Department, and because of that I believe it also violates House rule 
XXI; and I want to applaud the gentleman for raising the point of order 
and support it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in pertinent part, an 
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if 
changing existing law. The amendment gives affirmative direction in 
effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order against the Baldwin amendment? If not, the Chair is prepared to 
rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment does include language conferring 
authority; and, therefore, the amendment constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained, 
and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a review of the proposed project for construction of 
     a remote passenger check-in facility at Los Angeles 
     International Airport to determine whether the project as 
     designed will protect the safety of air passengers and the 
     general public.
       (b) Upon completion of the review and not later than the 
     end of fiscal year 2004, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration a report containing the results of the review.

  Ms. WATERS (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 gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. 
Obey) amendment had been accepted, there would be no need for my 
amendment. His amendment did what I think needed to be done in order to 
make our Homeland Security Department real.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have shored 
up what we say we want to do by appropriating $1 billion to improve 
aviation security, maritime security, infrastructure security, and 
border security and port security.
  Now, it seems to me if this administration was serious about homeland 
security, we would not hear these weak arguments that we are hearing on 
the floor tonight. It is absolutely amazing that the people on the 
other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
can get up and defend against needing more money to make

[[Page H5785]]

our homeland secure. It is really not to be understood how they can 
defend contracts going to foreign companies when we have Members on 
this floor begging for the opportunity to have these contracts in their 
districts to do something about this unemployment that was created by 
this administration.
  Mr. Chairman, the day is over for flashlights and duct tape and 
plastic material. This is about some serious business. Some of us 
really do take this seriously. We want to fight terrorism. We want to 
spend the money on it. We want to have real homeland security, and I am 
absolutely amazed that my friends on the other side of the aisle do not 
understand that.
  I come because I have got a problem in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles 
International Airport, which is located in my congressional district, 
is the third largest airport in the United States with a capacity to 
serve 78 million air passengers per year. On July 2, 2002, Los Angeles 
Mayor Jim Hahn proposed a plan to expand LAX by constructing a remote 
passenger check-in facility. The mayor estimated that this project 
would cost 9 to $10 billion. The environmental impact report on this 
project is due to be released in the near future.
  Supporters of this proposed project to construct a remote passenger 
check-in facility claim that the facility is necessary to improve the 
safety and security of LAX and prevent terrorist attacks at LAX. 
However, it is even more likely that the concentration of passengers in 
a remote passenger check-in facility could actually reduce the safety 
and security of LAX.
  The Rand Corporation conducted a security study of the proposed 
remote passenger check-in facility, which was released on May 14, 2003. 
The study concluded that the proposed project would not improve the 
security of LAX. The study also concluded that concentrating passengers 
in the proposed remote passenger check-in facility would make the 
check-in facility the likely target of a terrorist attack. The study 
even suggested that concentrating passengers in the remote passenger 
check-in facility could exacerbate the effects of an attack on airport 
operations.
  The Rand study did conclude that limiting the capacity of the airport 
could reduce the overall vulnerability of LAX to terrorist attacks. 
However, this could be accomplished by maintaining LAX at its existing 
capacity, with no additional airport construction projects.
  My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
review the proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in 
facility at LAX to determine whether the project will protect the 
safety of air passengers and the general public. The Secretary will be 
required to transmit to Congress and the Federal Aviation 
Administration a report containing the results of the review.
  Mr. Chairman, I am simply saying homeland security, look at this, 
review it, give us an assessment. If we are about the business of 
securing the homeland, this is a very simple request. If, in fact, my 
airport, which is already identified as one of the highest security 
risks in the United States, is attacked because we are concentrating 
passengers, I have been to the Committee on Rules twice. I am on this 
floor, and if I cannot get support for a simple review to talk about 
whether or not this would be safe, then something's wrong with those 
who purport to want homeland security.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here today to say that again the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment should have been accepted because this 
amendment will ensure that we have a real emphasis on homeland security 
in fighting this terrorism. Without it, we are just joking; we are 
playing games. We do not really mean that we want to support terrorism.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in part, an amendment to a 
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law. The amendment imposes additional duties and, therefore, violates 
the rule.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment does include language imparting 
direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained 
and the amendment is not in order.


                   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 to provide assistance to any State or local 
     government entity or official that restricts any government 
     entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the 
     Department of Homeland Security information regarding an 
     individual's citizenship or immigration status, as prohibited 
     under section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, as was indicated in 1996, this body did, 
in fact, pass the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration 
Responsibility Act. One provision of that act states notwithstanding 
any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State or 
local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any other 
way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or 
receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information 
regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of 
any individual.
  It is a good provision of law. I am glad that we passed it. One 
problem with it is that there are no provisions for any sort of 
sanction should a State, local, or any other agency choose to violate 
the law.
  It was indicated earlier there was some degree of indignation that 
was identified as appropriate by some of my colleagues on the other 
side when we have corporations, they say, who have fled from the United 
States, sought some sort of tax haven off the coasts of America, yet 
would make application for funds under this act. They were indignant 
and outraged; and I, by the way, share that feeling of indignation.
  It is also, I think, somewhat outrageous to have cities apply for 
funds under this act when they pass legislation, which has been done in 
several cities around the country, that actually prevents the law 
enforcement agencies in those cities from sharing information or 
obtaining information from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
or the Bureau of Immigration and Customs as it is now known.
  So this is a very simple amendment. It just says a person cannot 
obtain funds under this act if they are, in fact, one of those cities 
that have done as I have just described.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I was trying to listen to the gentleman from Colorado 
as he explained his amendment. I have read the amendment several times 
and I, frankly, have to admit I do not understand it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to explain it again. The 
purpose of the amendment is to restrict the ability of cities, 
counties, and local entities that have violated provisions of the 1996 
act which are word for word what we have described in this amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we now have a new 
department. It could not have existed in 1996.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I would note that the law, and as I understand the law subsequent to 
that time, has indicated the term INS can be used interchangeably with 
Homeland Security, or the Bureau of Immigration and Customs.
  Mr. SABO. So it applied to the INS, the existing law?

[[Page H5786]]

  Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman will continue yielding, the original 
law in 1996, yes, it did.
  Mr. SABO. Would it now apply to all parts of the Department of 
Homeland Security, so it would also apply to TSA?
  Mr. TANCREDO. The law applies as it applied before. It does not 
change the application of the law, it simply provides some enforcement 
mechanism.
  Mr. SABO. But does it expand who the law applies to?
  Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman is continuing to yield, it does not. 
It is exactly the same wording of the 1996 act. The only thing we are 
doing is adding some sort of sanction for its violation.
  Mr. SABO. Are there new and different grants that could be 
restricted?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Grants under the provisions of this act.
  Mr. SABO. I am trying to understand, again, Mr. Chairman. Can the 
gentleman tell me who the original law applied to, in what form?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Shall I read the law again? Does the gentleman wish me 
to read the law?
  Mr. SABO. Yes.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State 
or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official 
may not prohibit or in any other way restrict any government entity or 
official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or 
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
  As I say, this amendment does not change anything except it adds a 
sanction for any one of those entities that in fact violate the law.
  Mr. SABO. But, Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to get at, I guess, is 
my understanding that you are saying that the old law applied to the 
INS; this law now applies to the Department of Homeland Security, which 
is 22 agencies rather than one agency.
  Mr. TANCREDO. The gentleman is correct that this act, the act that we 
are amending, does in fact include TSA, Coast Guard, Secret Service, 
and First Responders, and the amendment would apply to all of those 
agencies also.
  Mr. SABO. So it would be a significant expansion in the scope of what 
the current law is?
  Mr. TANCREDO. I suppose under that interpretation that is true.
  Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do. I think the gentleman's last words indicate the 
validity of the point of order.
  As I understand it, under the gentleman's amendment, if States 
prohibit information from going to the Homeland Security agency, then 
the State can get no dollars under this act. My understanding of 
current law is that it only prohibits States from providing information 
to the INS. But Homeland Security, as the gentleman from Minnesota has 
indicated, includes TSA, it includes the Coast Guard, it includes 
Secret Service, FEMA, and a number of other agencies.
  To me, this amendment substantially expands the scope of the coverage 
and, therefore, I think is legislation on an appropriations bill and 
not in order under the House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair notes that the limitation addresses a broader segment of 
the Executive than is addressed by the cited statute. As such, the 
amendment is susceptible to the construction that it attempts to apply 
the cited statute in cases where it is not otherwise applicable.
  Because the proponent of the amendment has not carried the burden of 
persuading the Chair that the amendment is solely a negative 
restriction on funds in the bill without changing the application of 
existing law, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order. 
The amendment is not in order.


             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:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec.    . In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, the amount of $3,000,000 is hereby appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security for a grant to the 
     University of Texas Center for Biosecurity to establish a 
     homeland security training capacity in Houston, Texas, with 
     strong academic and community partners.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order 
on the amendment; and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on her amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this 
amendment that I intend to discuss would be considered an earmark. I 
would like to think that the reason I am bringing this amendment to the 
floor goes to the earlier debate that we had on the question of 
expediting funds to those who are in the fight against terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a desperation out there, Mr. Chairman, and, 
frankly, this particular program is a program that has a very important 
mission. In a few days the Select Committee on Homeland Security will 
be marking up the BioShield legislation that is to provide, in essence, 
a shield around the United States against bioterrorism. The mission of 
this center is to educate the front line public health work force, 
medical and emergency responders, key leaders, and other professionals 
to respond to threats such as bioterrorism and other emergencies that 
affect our communities. The center responds to the unique challenges in 
Texas to which regional campuses, including three sites along the 
critical U.S.-Mexican border, and through its urban campuses located in 
San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a request because it happens to be in my 
area, but it is a request because Texas is listed as one of the most 
vulnerable areas for terrorism. This center will work nationally. The 
center works with academic institutions, governmental agencies, and 
relief organizations to promote our health security programs.
  This amendment I am offering is representative of a number of 
amendments that I have offered on the basis that there is desperation 
out there. Another amendment that is not part of this but I want to 
make mention of, Mr. Chairman, is an amendment for $1 million to the 
University of Texas Health Science Center and Charity Productions to 
develop community-based homeland security preparedness. This, I hope, 
will educate my colleagues, along with other Members interested, to the 
fact that we must ensure the protection of the neighborhoods.
  This particular proposal coming from the University of Texas Health 
Science Center and Charity Productions is to provide for an emergency 
preparedness education program for community residents. Charity 
Productions is also developing an emergency preparedness education 
program in conjunction with the University of Texas. The civic 
organization collaborates with human service organizations, such as the 
Red Cross and the NAACP. To date, this civic coalition has held several 
emergency and disaster citizen workshops.
  The goals of the partnership between the University of Texas Health 
Science Center and Charity Productions is to train neighborhood 
stakeholders, provide a comprehensive rage of opportunities to ensure 
neighborhood safety, and to facilitate full participation for all 
community residents, whether or not their active language is English, 
to increase community partnerships and to work with governmental 
programs to provide the support and training necessary at the grass 
roots level. The value of these collaborative efforts in the event of a 
terrorist attack is immeasurable.
  The question always has to be that when we try to secure the homeland 
we have to secure the neighborhoods. These earmarks that I am 
suggesting are clearly to bring to the attention of this floor that we 
must expedite the funds to these local communities.
  My other amendment, that again I will simply discuss, has to do with 
resources to the Houston Bureau of Immigration Customs Enforcement, and 
the grounds are basically the same;

[[Page H5787]]

that in fighting terrorism there are some places that have a higher 
ranking. Houston was ranked number seven on the list of cities most 
vulnerable to a terrorist attack by Secretary Tom Ridge of the 
Department of Homeland Security. Certainly we need effective 
immigration controls necessary to add to the safety of the region.
  Mr. Chairman, it is crucial as we move through this process that we 
realize that all of this cannot be done in Washington. It has to be 
done on the homefront. Again, I remind my colleagues of the overview 
that many of us took this past weekend when we could clearly see 
neighborhoods within yards, within blocks of very dangerous or 
potentially dangerous areas, meaning they were vulnerable to terrorist 
attacks. While I was in California, there was a train derailment that 
wound up going into a local crowded residential area.
  Mr. Chairman, desperation causes us to want to move the Department 
faster, to want to move the funds faster, to want to simplify the 
process to ensure that monies are gotten directly to those who are 
doing research.
  I also want to add, Mr. Chairman, the importance of including 
Hispanic serving institutions in research, which is what this BioShield 
effort will do and these monies will do, historically black colleges, 
Native American institutions, Asian Pacific so we can expand the reach 
to culturally diverse communities. So though we may not be able to move 
forward today, we clearly should be moving forward to be of greater 
assistance to those who are securing the homeland.
  Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, the Department 
of Homeland Security appropriations bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  The purpose of this amendment is to appropriate funds to the 
University of Texas--Center for Biosecurity, in conjunction with 
academic and community partners, to establish training programs for 
dealing with biological terrorist attacks in the Houston area.
  Protecting America's homeland will be accomplished at the local 
level. To adequately prepare local police departments, fire 
departments, hazardous materials teams and other first responders will 
require expert training and education. Additionally, preparing 
community-based nonprofit organizations and civic corps will require 
guidance on how members of the community can help government agencies 
in the event of a terrorist attack. The University of Texas--Center for 
Biosecurity's training initiative will not only prepare the Houston 
area to deal with a terrorist attack, it will provide a training model 
for other cities across the country.
  The University of Texas--Center for Biosecurity is located within the 
School of Public Health of The University of Texas Health Science 
Center at Houston. The mission of this center is to educate the 
frontline public health workforce, medical and emergency responders, 
key leaders, and other professionals to respond to threats such as 
bioterrorism, and other emergencies that affect our communities. The 
center responds to the unique challenges in Texas through its regional 
campuses, including three sites along the critical United States-Mexico 
border and through its urban campuses located in San Antonio, Dallas, 
and Houston. Nationally, the center works with academic institutions, 
governmental agencies, and relief organizations to promote our health 
security program objectives. The Center for Biosecurity is organized 
into four main homeland security cores to conduct its programs: 
training and education, research, integrated response, and community 
service.
  The Training and Education component provides an integrated forum to 
bring critical community responders together under the philosophy of 
``training together to respond together.'' This endeavor includes both 
short-term targeted programs of instruction, as well as longer term 
opportunities for more specialized education culminating in master's 
and doctoral degrees.
  The research component focuses on emerging public health and safety 
issues to provide analysis, evaluation, and technology solutions for 
homeland security health threats that endanger the community and those 
who must respond to preserve their health. The center also strives to 
translate new ideas into effective solutions that address State-based 
health security needs.
  The Integrated Response component works with public health, medical, 
and affiliated first responders to identify training needs to improve 
our Nation's health security. In addition, we strive to provide the 
tools for preparedness and response where active collaboration between 
vital emergency response sectors will be critical to achieve the best 
health outcomes for the population. Lessons from the military are 
integrated into civilian practice.
  The Community Service component provides expertise for planning, 
training exercises, executive leadership, public health, and hospital 
preparedness in both domestic and international settings. Partners in 
vulnerable communities are critical to this preparedness effort. Local 
partners integral to this center include Texas Southern University on 
issues related to providing mass medical prophylaxis to underserved 
populations, and Prairie View A on issues related to public health 
outreach and nursing.
  Mr. Chairman, the University of Texas--Center for Biosecurity is a 
critical program for preparing the Houston area for a terrorist attack. 
My amendment will provide needed funding for this pilot program. I urge 
my colleagues to support my amendment.

Amendment to H.R. 2555, As Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec.    . In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, the amount of $3,000,000 is hereby appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security for a grant to the 
     University of Texas Center for Biosecurity to establish a 
     homeland security training capacity in Houston, Texas, with 
     strong academic and community partners.

  Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, the Department 
of Homeland Security Appropriations bill and I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  This amendment requests that $1,000,000 in Department of Homeland 
Security funds be appropriated for the University of Texas Health 
Science Center and Charity Productions to develop community-based 
homeland security preparedness measures.
  Securing America's homeland must be accomplished at the local level. 
It is imperative that community-based organizations work in conjunction 
with state and local government officials, first responders, and 
medical personnel to ensure that needed services are provided to the 
community in the event of a terrorist attack, and needed information 
only available to members of the community gets to public officials. 
The partnership between University of Texas Health Science Center and 
Charity Productions seeks to develop and implement programs to assist 
local community officials in their homeland security preparedness 
efforts.
  The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston embraces a 
mission to advance the health of the people of the State of Texas, the 
Nation, and our global community through educating compassionate health 
care professionals and innovative scientists. The University of Texas 
Health Science Center at Houston supports its mission by working with 
the community organizations to meet the needs of local residents. 
Charity Productions is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing 
innovative programs and workshops for community groups, school 
districts, parents, youths, law enforcement agencies, and various other 
service providers.
  Charity Productions has developed a prototype community activism 
initiative designed to reach underserved communities and get them 
active in homeland security efforts through civic clubs. The local 
focus of the charity allows members of the community to work directly 
with health care, fire, and police officials to prepare for terrorist 
attacks. The University of Texas Health Science Center brings 
technical, medical and emergency expertise to the partnership. One of 
the goals of MNP is to develop and implement an Emergency Preparedness 
Education Program (EPEP) for community residents. Charity Productions 
is also developing EPEP in conjunction with the University of Texas. 
The Civic Organization Collaborates with human service organizations 
such as the Red Cross, and NAACP. To date the Civic Coalition has held 
several Emergency and Disaster Citizens Workshops.
  The goals of the partnership between University of Texas Health 
Science Center and Charity Productions are: to train neighborhood 
stakeholders; provide a comprehensive range of opportunities to insure 
neighborhood safety; to facilitate full participation for all community 
residents whether or not their active language is English; to increase 
community partnerships; and to work with governmental programs to 
provide the support and training necessary at the grassroots level. The 
value of these collaborative efforts in the event of a terrorist attack 
is immeasurable.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment requests funds to implement a program 
that will provide safety to the citizens of the Houston area, and will 
provide a model for local communities across the country in their 
homeland security preparedness efforts. I urge my colleagues to support 
my amendment.

Amendment to H.R. 2555, As Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec.    . In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, the amount of

[[Page H5788]]

     $1,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security for a grant to the University of Texas 
     Health Science Center and Charity Productions to develop 
     community-based homeland security preparedness initiatives in 
     the Houston area.

  Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2555, the Department 
of Homeland Security Appropriations bill and I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  My amendment seeks a $1,000,000 appropriation for the Houston Bureau 
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for homeland security related 
immigration and customs enforcement measures.
  The events of September 11 have illustrated the importance of strict 
enforcement of immigration laws and regulations. Likewise, the events 
in the aftermath of September 11, from terrorism profiling to illegal 
detentions, have illustrated that our immigration efforts related to 
fighting terrorism must be refined. My amendment allocates funds to the 
Houston Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make the 
necessary changes to immigration enforcement procedures in regards to 
fighting terrorism.
  Houston was ranked number seven on the list of cities most vulnerable 
to a terrorist attack by Tom Ridge, the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security. As such, effective immigration controls are 
necessary to protect Houston from terrorist attacks. The homeland 
security/immigration enforcement component of Houston's Bureau of 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement will promote public safety and 
local security by deterring illegal migration, preventing immigration-
related crimes regarding terrorism, and removing individuals, 
especially criminals, who are unlawfully present in the Houston area. 
This mandate is carried out by the Immigration Investigations, 
Detention and Removal, and Intelligence Departments.
  The Immigration Investigation Department, and their staff of field 
agents, investigates violations of the criminal and administrative 
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Detention and 
Removal Department is responsible for the supervision, detention, and 
removal of aliens who are in the Houston area and United States 
unlawfully or who are found to be deportable or inadmissible. Finally, 
the Intelligence Department analyzes and implements intelligence 
received from the National Office, and collects and analyzes 
immigration intelligence for the Houston area.
  The funds will be used to finance existing immigration enforcement 
programs, and to develop new programs to improve immigration 
enforcement and reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks in the 
Houston area.
  Mr. Chairman, if terrorists are unable to breach the borders of the 
United States their ability to perform terrorist acts will be all but 
eliminated. I propose my amendment to fund the immigration control 
efforts in the city of Houston. I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.

Amendment to H.R. 2555, As Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec.    . In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, the amount of $1,000,000 is hereby appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security for use by the Houston, 
     Texas, Office of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement for homeland security related immigration and 
     customs enforcement in the Houston area.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky 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 provides an appropriation for an 
unauthorized program, therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI which 
states, in pertinent part, an appropriation may not be in order as an 
amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed 
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and 
I respectfully ask for a ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I said this earlier today. We 
are working as best we can, but I would argue that while Rome is 
burning we are standing on this issue of waiving points of order and, 
therefore, those who are in great need of resources to protect America 
and to protect neighborhoods are without those resources.
  This amendment was offered in desperation, the need to move forward 
on funding the opportunities for neighborhoods to secure themselves, 
that school districts can provide safe places in the community for our 
neighbors, to educate our neighbors about homeland security, to provide 
personnel, to provide resources and to provide equipment.
  What I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that in light of the point of 
order, the point has been made, and I hope to work with the authorizing 
committee as we move through the appropriations process to douse this 
fire that Rome now is engulfed in and to be able to say to our 
communities that we are expediting those funds and providing the 
necessary resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the funding of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. The bill before us includes $1.8 billion in disaster 
assistance for FEMA to use in fiscal year 2004 to assist the many 
communities across the country that will encounter natural disasters 
such as ice storms, tornadoes, and forest fires.
  Mr. Chairman, I planned to offer an amendment today that would have 
given FEMA an additional $1.6 billion that it needs just to cover a 
shortfall in disaster assistance for the 2003 year.

                              {time}  1945

  But the communities that are waiting for this money cannot wait any 
longer. They cannot wait for the new fiscal year to begin in October 
when FEMA's coffers will be replenished. The administration has an 
obligation to ask Congress immediately to provide FEMA with the money 
it needs to help the communities that were promised assistance by the 
President when he declared those cities and towns disaster areas. FEMA 
is running so low on money right now that I understand the agency is 
only fulfilling a part of its mission under the Stafford Act, parts A 
and B for debris removal and emergency protection measures.
  While I believe it is very important for FEMA to provide funds for 
these important categories of assistance, relief under categories C 
through G of the Public Assistance Program are also vitally important. 
Unfortunately, I have been informed that FEMA has frozen funding for 
the Public Assistance Programs that help communities rebuild roads and 
bridges as well as public buildings and utilities. This is 
unacceptable.
  I know that the communities in the 29 counties in Ohio that the 
President declared disaster areas this winter have already expended 
money to rebuild the local infrastructure required to get these towns 
back on their feet. In one of my counties, Monroe County, Ohio, the 
county engineer has already spent so much money and has failed to be 
reimbursed for it that he has had to lay off five county employees. 
Five workers in Monroe County, Ohio, are unemployed tonight because 
FEMA has not met its obligations.
  In southern Ohio, FEMA approved 1,363 projects across 29 counties to 
be funded following this winter's ice storms that occurred in my 
district and districts of many other Members throughout the region, 
both Republican and Democratic Members. Because of FEMA's funding 
shortfall, however, 293 reconstruction projects remain to be funded. 
Only 80 percent of approved projects in Ohio have been completed since 
last winter's ice storm. The State is still waiting for $11 million 
from FEMA to finish up the remaining 293 projects, but across this 
country the situation is the same.
  The National Emergency Management Association has indicated in a 
letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi) that thousands of applications will go 
unanswered if supplemental appropriations in the range of $1.6 billion 
are not passed immediately. More than 35 States and Territories have 
experienced disasters just this year and thousands of projects in those 
States will go unfunded unless the administration asks Congress for 
supplemental appropriations.
  I am circulating a letter to Secretary Ridge today, and I ask all of 
my colleagues to join me. We should ask Secretary Ridge to work with 
the administration to ensure that a request for supplemental 
appropriations is made

[[Page H5789]]

immediately so that the appropriations committees in the House and 
Senate can begin work on a bill to provide FEMA with the money the 
agency needs to continue disaster payments to the States. The States 
cannot wait for the fiscal year 2004 appropriations process to run its 
course. They need assistance now, as do the thousands of communities 
across the country that are waiting to be reimbursed for the important 
rebuilding projects that they have already begun or for the funds that 
they need to begin these projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I just call this issue to the attention of my 
colleagues and to this House. This is a critical matter. It needs to be 
addressed. As I said, I am calling upon Secretary Ridge and I hope all 
of my colleagues in the House will be willing to sign a letter to the 
Secretary asking that this request for supplemental funds be coming 
forthwith.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the gentleman that his comments are very 
well taken and when the administration makes the request, which we do 
anticipate, for FEMA and other issues, that the Committee on 
Appropriations will move on it quickly and very likely apply it to the 
very next appropriations bill that is in the process and ready to be 
considered by the House.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made me very happy. I 
appreciate the gentleman's concern and personal commitment, and we look 
forward to getting this done so these communities can get the help they 
so desperately need.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to talk about FEMA. FEMA is now under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. FEMA and the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission have a memorandum of understanding that 
FEMA is in charge of certifying offsite emergency evacuation plans of 
nuclear power plants. The process is still underway for the Indian 
Point plant in New York in Westchester County.
  I originally was going to put forth an amendment which would prevent 
Federal funds from being spent by FEMA to certify any offsite emergency 
evacuation plans for nuclear power plants, but I will not offer this 
amendment. However, I feel it is critical that I speak about a matter 
of homeland security to my constituents and the 20 million people 
living near the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in New York.
  While I am not against nuclear power, I believe it is in our Nation's 
vital interest to shut down the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in 
Buchanan, New York, right near my district of Bronx, Westchester, and 
Rockland Counties. Indian Point is located 35 miles north of midtown 
Manhattan. The planes that flew into the World Trade Center passed 
directly over the nuclear power plant and blueprints for American 
nuclear power plants were found in al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan.
  The problems with Indian Point are not new. Indian Point is located 
in a densely populated area, in fact the most densely populated area in 
all of the United States. In fact, it is the nuclear power plant that 
is the closest to any densely populated metropolitan area of the United 
States, and it happens to be the major metropolitan area of the United 
States.
  Approximately 20 million people are located within the 50-mile 
emergency planning zone. The road system in the area is woefully 
inadequate to meet the needs of those people living in the area making 
an evacuation in the event of an emergency at Indian Point impossible.
  No matter what the cause of radioactive release at Indian Point, 
terrorists or accidental, the result would be the same. The 20 million 
people living in the emergency planning zone would be in grave danger. 
Now the emergency evacuation plan that FEMA is now considering is 
fatally flawed and will not protect the public. An independent 
investigation of emergency preparedness at the plant conducted by 
former FEMA Director James Lee Witt and commissioned by Governor Pataki 
found that ``the current radiological response system and capabilities 
were not adequate to overcome their combined weight and protect the 
people from an unacceptable dose of radiation in the event of a release 
from Indian Point.''
  Following the release of the report in early January of this year, 
Governor Pataki and the four county executives from both parties within 
the 10-mile emergency planning zone refused to certify the evacuation 
plans. The report concluded there was no way to improve the existing 
emergency plan to sufficiently meet the current security threat.
  If we are to truly protect the citizens of the tri-State area of New 
York, New Jersey and Connecticut, we must shut Indian Point down. 
Again, I want to say I am not anti-nuclear power, but I am against 
risking the lives of 20 million American people.
  FEMA, despite refusing to certify the emergency evacuation plans on 
February 21, saying it could not provide reasonable assurance that the 
public would be protected in the event of a radioactive release from 
the plant, has still not issued a final determination. As a result, 
Indian Point is still operating despite the fact that no Federal agency 
is protecting the safety and security of my constituents.
  We all know that if built today, Indian Point would never be sited 
anywhere near the New York Metropolitan Area. Furthermore, September 11 
changed the equation. While I may not have been worried about the fact 
that a nuclear power plant was located in my backyard before September 
11, now we all know it is a potential terrorist target. We should not 
allow a nuclear plant to continue to operate just simply because it 
exists. FEMA must be forced to take the post-9/11 world into account 
when it evaluates the offsite emergency evacuation plan.
  In that case, I cannot imagine how FEMA could then provide reasonable 
assurance that the public would be protected should something go wrong 
at the plant. I know the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) shares 
these sentiments. I think it is very important that we understand that 
the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant should be shut down.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2004''.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The 
second electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 274, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 307]

                               AYES--149

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Baca
     Baird
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva

[[Page H5790]]


     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Majette
     Maloney
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Quinn
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--274

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Gephardt
     Hobson
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Myrick
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2019

  Messrs. BROWN of South Carolina, BEAUPREZ, MILLER of Florida, TAYLOR 
of Mississippi, BRADY of Texas, and ISRAEL, and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of 
Virginia and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. TANCREDO, QUINN, JONES of North Carolina, BOEHLERT, HEFLEY, 
WALSH, EVANS, HOLT, MATSUI, SCHIFF, FOSSELLA, SHIMKUS, RENZI, SHERMAN, 
and Ms. ESHOO 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 Mr. Markey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment 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 designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 278, 
noes 146, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               AYES--278

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clyburn
     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.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--146

     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner

[[Page H5791]]


     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cubin
     Gephardt
     Kilpatrick
     McDermott
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2028

  Messrs. ROHRABACHER, LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, KIRK, and ROYCE, 
Mrs. KELLY, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, and Ms. HART 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

  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 to provide assistance to any State or local 
     government entity or official that restricts any government 
     entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the 
     Bureau of Immigration and Customs (assuming the 
     responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service) 
     information regarding an individual's citizenship or 
     immigration status, as prohibited under section 642(a) of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in 1996, the House passed the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, a provision of 
which I have restated in this amendment. It simply says that 
notwithstanding other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, that 
a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not 
prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from 
sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or 
unlawful, of any individual.
  That is current law. We passed that in 1996.
  There was just one tiny problem with it. There are no sanctions, 
there are no provisions for a penalty if localities, in fact, violate 
the law. Unfortunately, there are cities in the United States that have 
disregarded the law. Recently, as a matter of fact, the City of New 
York rescinded an ordinance that for 20 years had prohibited police 
officers from not communicating----
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am having 
trouble following what this amendment does or does not do. It may be of 
significant relevance to some people.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, there are several cities in the United 
States that have chosen to pass legislation, pass laws that, in fact, 
restrict the ability of their own police forces, in many cases, from 
sharing information with the now Bureau of Immigration and Customs. 
That is a violation of the law. It is a violation of the present law. 
Unfortunately, there are no sanctions for that violation.
  All this amendment does is to impose such sanctions by saying that no 
funds made available in this act and under the provisions of 
specifically the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which has now 
become the Bureau of Immigration and Customs, can be forwarded to such 
a city that has, in fact, violated the law. It is as simple as that. 
There is nothing else to it. It was the original amendment that I made 
during the discussion earlier. I have changed the language to reflect 
the concerns of the Parliamentarian and the reason it was ruled out of 
order.
  That is the entire scope of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. If a Member wants to reserve a point of order, it must 
be done before the amendment is presented.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to ask the gentleman a question. What cities would this apply 
to?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Well, there are several cities that have passed laws in 
the nature I have just described, including Los Angeles; Portland, 
Maine; Houston; Seattle; San Francisco; San Jose; Portland, Oregon; San 
Diego; and Chicago, to name a few. I think there are others.
  Mr. SABO. Houston. And do I understand correctly, because I have 
tried to read this language. I am sorry, there was so much noise I 
could not clearly hear what the gentleman was saying.
  Under old law, under the INS, there were certain restrictions that we 
passed that in some fashion applied to the transfer of funds from the 
INS if a city did certain things; is that what it states?
  Mr. TANCREDO. No. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
original law did not apply to the transfer of any funds. It was simply 
a law making it illegal for any city to restrict the flow of 
information to or from the Department of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, actually.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I read this amendment, 
this says, none of the funds can be used to provide assistance to any 
State or local government, entity, or official that does certain 
things. I do not quite understand the end of this, what they are or are 
not doing.
  My assumption is that now this would apply to FEMA funds, emergency 
funds; it would apply to airports that are receiving funds under the 
Transportation Security Act.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, no, that is 
not correct. That was the original concern the gentleman raised. The 
Parliamentarian at that time ruled that because the original amendment 
had the words ``Homeland Security,'' that the gentleman was correct in 
his point of order. I have changed it so that it does not refer to the 
Department of Homeland Security. It refers specifically to the Bureau 
of Immigration and Customs, which meets the Parliamentarian's concern; 
and I have reintroduced the amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sorry, I am having 
trouble again. But as I read this, none of the funds made available in 
this act may be used to provide assistance to any State or local 
government or official that restricts any government entity or official 
from sending or receiving funds, and I am not sure what agency the 
gentleman is referring to. But ``none of the funds that are used to 
provide assistance'' would now include all of the funds flowing to 
airports from the TSA; and it would apply to FEMA funds, I would 
assume. It would apply to all of the first responder funds that are in 
this bill. I would assume it would apply to all the port funds that are 
in this bill.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, once again, the law that I am amending, 
the provision of the law that I am addressing here is current law. The 
provision of the law that we are dealing with is the part of the 1996 
act.

[[Page H5792]]

  All this amendment does is say that no funds can be provided through 
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs to cities that have violated this 
law. That is it. We are simply putting teeth into the original law. 
That is all there is to it. Nothing more. It is as simple as that. And 
it is through the Bureau of Immigration and Customs. It is not TSA in 
particular, by the way, the one that the gentleman keeps referring to.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I will let someone else maybe try and figure 
it out. I remain confused. It just seems to go farther to me than what 
the gentleman has indicated.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word in an effort to 
understand the first few words.
  The gentleman from Colorado said to the gentleman from Minnesota that 
the only funds involved were funds under the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act, but that is not what it says. The 
amendment says ``none of the funds made available in this act.'' The 
reference to the Immigration Responsibility jaw-breaker does not come 
until the bottom. What it says is that if you violate the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, then you get no 
funds under this act.
  I know we debated what ``is'' is, but I thought we were pretty clear 
on what ``this'' is. This is this. This is the act. It says ``none of 
the funds made available in this act.''
  So the question is, in line 2 of the gentleman's amendment, when it 
says ``none of the funds made available in this act,'' what act is he 
talking about? And it would appear to be the act that we are now about 
to enact.
  I wanted to ask the question precisely. I would ask the gentleman 
when it says in line 1, none of the funds made available, and in line 
2, this act, in line 2, what do the words ``this act'' refer to?
  I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment goes on to further define 
it, and it is defined: through the money that is provided to the Bureau 
of Immigration and Customs.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, it 
does not. The gentleman has not read his own amendment, much less 
written it.
  What this says is, you do not get any funds under this act if you 
violate the Illegal Immigration Act. It does not say that the funds 
come under the act; it is a 2-part amendment. It says, first, you do 
not get any funds under this act. It does not define this act later on; 
it defines what forfeits money under this act. What causes you to 
forfeit money under this act is a violation of the Immigration Act. It 
does not say in here that you lose money under the Immigration Act; it 
says you lose money under this appropriation if you violate that act.
  I will yield again.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I must admit I do not believe that the 
gentleman is really confused about the purpose of the amendment or the 
words that are printed here. It is, in fact, quite clear.
  We have run it around the horn here several times, including with the 
Parliamentarians. The issue that the gentleman brought up earlier 
dealing with an expansion of the original law has been dealt with by 
this new amendment. We are speaking specifically of the Bureau of 
Immigration and Customs.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
say to the gentleman, I understand his concern with making clear, and I 
have heard him say this in other contexts, that English is the official 
language, and I would urge him to work on that, because English is what 
it states here, and it says, in English, this is in English now, the 
only language I speak being a typical American; it says in English, 
``none of the funds made available in this act may be used to provide 
assistance to any State that violates the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Act.''
  So it is very clear. It is this act to which the funds refer. The act 
that was passed in 1996 triggers the loss of funds under this act. And 
it seems to me it is a far harsher penalty for the violation and the 
very fact that the gentleman offers the amendment in one form and then 
explains it in another is, I think, an indication of its weakness.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who is offering this amendment has just 
said that what he is doing is to apply to existing law with respect to 
the Immigration Act as a new set of sanctions. And what that means is 
that none of the funds provided in this bill can go to any locality 
that is violating that law which means they get no fire grants, they 
get no port security money, they get no money for their Office of 
Domestic Preparedness.
  It applies to FEMA. How many of you want to have a disaster and find 
out because of some technicality your State is not eligible for any 
money? How would you like that if it happened to fire funds, for 
instance?
  So I would say that it is very clear, you are making a very big 
change in what localities can receive under this bill. Now, State and 
localities are already being short-changed and should have received far 
more than they did in the tax bill because of their budget crunch. This 
will simply add to their woes and will do so inadvertently if they were 
simply in violation because of a technicality.
  It is obvious to me that we are going to have a vote on this bill. As 
far as I am concerned, we might as well get on with the vote and get 
out of here.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak for 5 minutes. I just want to 
say what this amendment does, to be blunt, is it says that if any city 
in the country, and according to the gentleman who read a list of most 
of the large cities in the country, if they are in violation of a 
particular provision of the Immigration Act which now has no sanction, 
this will put a sanction on the city, on all the large cities, and the 
sanction will be that we will leave them open and naked to the 
terrorists. That is what it says.
  No funds can go to those cities to protect their ports, no funds made 
available in this act. This act makes available funds for fire, for 
police, for emergency responses, for protection against terrorists. 
Now, I know we want to get to a vote but this is about as important an 
amendment as we have taken up here in a long time. Because whether the 
people understand it or not, what this amendment will do, and maybe we 
should do something about non-enforcement about the immigration 
provision, maybe the Committee on the Judiciary should hold hearings on 
that, but in fact what this amendment does is say most of the large 
cities in the country because they are not in compliance with a 
specific provision of the immigration law will gets no funds to use to 
protect themselves against the terrorists. No funds for port security, 
no funds for airport security, no funds for fire and emergency 
response. That, I submit, makes no sense.
  It says to all the citizens in all those large cities, we will hold 
you hostage so that the terrorists have a free hand at you if your city 
violates the immigration law. That is not the way to enforce the 
immigration law. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the public is paying attention to this debate. 
If we had major cities throughout this country, they are refusing to 
cooperate with the INS and other people who are trying to protect us 
from illegal aliens that may be coming in to do terrorist acts, they 
should not be getting funds from this government. We are trying to ask 
them to comply to protect our citizens when we are given that type of a 
description.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
to give him a chance to answer some of these absurd charges.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, at least the gentleman from the other 
side who spoke a minute ago did reflect accurately, I think, the 
purpose of the amendment. It is to do exactly that. It is to restrict 
funds to those cities

[[Page H5793]]

which have decided to restrict their police or other agencies from 
sharing information with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs. That is 
accurate and that is the first time it was described accurately by 
anybody on the other side. That is exactly what I want to do. Because, 
Mr. Chairman, there are in fact cities that are violating that law. We 
passed it in 1996. There has got to be some way for us to impose some 
sort of sanction or repeal the law with or if it is on the books, let 
us have in some teeth in that.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, the purpose of this amendment is 
clear. We are trying to have cooperation throughout the country in a 
matter that is vital to our national security and the safety of our 
people. If there are people in those governments, in those cities that 
are refusing to cooperate with us, refusing to permit those who are 
responsible for protecting our borders to get assistance, they should 
not be getting funds. This is how we will encourage them to get 
involved and to help protect America.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, three quick points.
  Number one is 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 give information about someone's citizenship like mine or 
anyone else's because that is what the gentleman's amendment reads.
  This is a coercive action against any State, municipal or other 
entity to say to that State, municipality or other entity, you must do 
a series of things, including giving information on a person's 
citizenship status, like my citizenship status, to the INS. So much for 
State rights, so much for the local municipalities know best. So much 
for all I have listened to for the last decade.
  This is an unfunded mandate on all of those governmental entities 
making it an extension of what was the INS. That is what you really 
want to do.
  Lastly, you can keep taking lessons in Spanish, but if this is your 
Hispanic outreach we want none of it. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer but in spite of that I think I 
understand the intent of this amendment. As I understand it, we have a 
law that has been in effect now for 7 years which is really being 
violated by a number of cities. The Mayor of San Francisco, for 
example, told her police not to give information to INS. This is a 
clear violation of the law.
  No evil thing is going to happen to any city or any jurisdiction if 
they just follow the law. When you do not follow the law, you end up in 
jail if you are an ordinary citizen. These cities and jurisdictions 
that are violating this law need to understand that the law needs to be 
kept.
  All this amendment says is if they do not follow the law which has 
now been in effect for 7 years, they are not going to get any money, 
and I think that is a very reasonable thing. I do not think there will 
be any violations of the law because they clearly want the money. And I 
just do not think there is anything sinister in this. We have a law 
that is grossly violated. There are no penalties in the law. All this 
does is put in reasonable penalties. The only penalties you can put in 
this bill is simply denying them funding under this bill. Nobody will 
get hurt. All they have to do is follow the law and they will get all 
the money they should get.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is very simple. It should not be necessary 
to discuss this any longer. It could not be simpler. They are breaking 
the law. This puts some teeth in the law. If they continue to break the 
law, they will not get money. If they do not get money, they will not 
continue to break the law.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the discussion that we are having tonight is 
really a discussion about immigration and the immigration policy of our 
country. And we might want to cloak it in national security but it is 
what it is.
  Our Supreme Court has stated that when you matriculate a child in 
school, you do not ask the immigration status of that child or that 
child's parents. That is the Supreme Court decision. That is the law of 
this land. Children born here in the United States of America, they are 
citizens by constitutional right. When their parents go to enroll them 
in school, they must feel free to enroll them in school. Indeed, there 
are hundreds of thousands of children in our public school systems in 
this country whose parents do not have a legal status in this country. 
They do. They are the citizens of this great Nation of ours. We should 
allow those educational systems to continue to work.
  There are police departments, over 400 of them in the Nation, that 
have made a decision that they want crime reported. That is a very 
local decision. And we should not be substituting it with a national 
policy by passing this amendment. I think the police chief of LA, the 
police chief of New York, the police chief of Chicago and the employees 
that work under them should be given the respect that this institution 
should give to them because they are on the front line fighting crime 
each and every day. And they should make the decisions about how best 
they can protect the welfare of the citizens of those cities.
  We have talked a lot about the localities and making sure that 
everything works better back home. Well, this is an instance where 
things are working better back home and we should leave it alone. And 
we can have a debate all night, but I think clearly what is going to be 
read in the papers tomorrow and the evaluation that is going to be made 
of this vote is going to be that those that care to say that immigrants 
are bad to this country, and those that care to extol the virtues of 
immigrants are going to take different sides on this debate. But this 
is really a debate about immigration.
  Let me end with this: I think that the President of the United States 
of America acknowledged that we have to do something about undocumented 
workers in this country. That is just a fact. There are 8 to 10 million 
undocumented workers and that is what this is really all about, and 
this is an attempt to deny them education and to deny their children 
education and to deny the police to protect them. That is what this is 
really all about.
  The President of the United States sat down with the President of 
Mexico for one to try to work out some reasonable immigration policy. 
We should allow them and the Secretaries of State of those countries to 
bring back, to come to a reasonable solution. Listen, this is not going 
to get rid of one undocumented worker, as long as in the State of 
Washington 70 percent of the agricultural workers are undocumented. We 
know that we eat their apples. We eat the grapes from California. We 
eat the oranges from Florida. We know who picked those fruits in this 
Nation. We know who does some of the hardest work in this country each 
and every day.
  So let us have a debate on immigration. Let us have a debate on 
immigration. Let us have a broad debate on immigration, and let us try 
to figure out how we streamline new immigrants to this country as we 
integrate those that are working hard, paying taxes and following the 
law of this land. Let us not have a debate here tonight where one 
person can go and put a claim, I got the immigrants today. I feel so 
proud.
  America has a proud tradition in this country of respecting the work 
and the wealth of the contributions of immigrants, whether they be 
Italian or Irish or Polish. That is what has made this Nation so great.
  Let us not belittle those contributions here with this debate 
tonight. Let us vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just say the following: The topic of immigration 
is a very much sensitive topic and it is emotional. It is perceived 
with a lot of emotion in the immigrant communities in this country. And 
so what I would ask is that we have the opportunity to review this 
amendment. I asked my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) for a copy, and he said that the only copy is on the desk, so 
I have not had an opportunity to even read this amendment.

[[Page H5794]]

                              {time}  2100

  What I do know is the following, that this is a sensitive issue; that 
it requires that this House deliberate on it, and if it is an amendment 
that we have not even had an opportunity to read, then my suggestion 
would be to my friend that he give an opportunity to this House, 
through the regular process, for this to be studied; and if he will 
not, then I will vote against this amendment. I say so because this is 
a sensitive issue. This is an issue of extraordinary sensitivity to the 
immigrant communities in this country; and so I ask both sides of the 
aisle, if the amendment is not withdrawn, to vote it down.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I hope that we can listen to my good friend from Florida; and for 
those who are still trying to struggle with their own conscience, let 
me just simply say that this is a sensitive issue, but what it does 
capture is our fear of politics, and I just want my colleagues to think 
of a local hamlet or rural area that inadvertently, inadvertently does 
not provide information. They too will lose their fund.
  The other aspect of this amendment that the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) has not spoken to is that they will make the teachers, 
doctors, nurses and others hunting down those they believe to be 
violators of the immigration laws and they will begin to approach not 
those who may be undocumented, but they will approach citizens who are, 
in fact, documented. It will be a politics of fear because our local 
communities will be fearful of losing the dollars that they are going 
to get.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida has made a very good 
proposition. This House, the committees have not had an opportunity to 
review this amendment, nor have they had a full opportunity to review 
how we wish to go forward on immigration policy.
  My question to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) would be, 
is the administration in support of this amendment? Is President Bush 
in support of this amendment? Is this an administration proposition? If 
it is, then we need to have a policy statement, a letter from the 
administration suggesting that this is an amendment that they support; 
and frankly, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is an amendment that 
will take us down that very thorny path of seeking out citizens who 
happen to have a foreign name, wherever they might be, because our 
cities and local governments, rural areas will be fearful that the long 
hand of the government will snatch their money away from them.
  This is a bad amendment, and I hope that it goes down the tube; but I 
hope the gentleman will withdraw the amendment or vote it down.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 102, 
noes 322, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               AYES--102

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--322

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burr
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     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
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     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
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reyes
     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
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Gephardt
     John
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Udall (CO)
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  2120

  Mr. GIBBONS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California changed his vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I was inadvertently detained and 
did not arrive in the Chamber in time to vote on rollcall number 309, 
the Tancredo amendment to H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we wrap up debate on this bill, this historic bill, 
the very

[[Page H5795]]

first appropriations bill that this Congress has taken up to fund the 
new Department of Homeland Security, truly a historic day, I want to 
say just briefly how much I appreciate all of the help that the members 
of the subcommittee gave to us as we crafted this bill in a bipartisan 
way, and for all of the Members who have conducted the debate today, I 
think, in a very high-minded way.
  I want to especially thank my colleague, my ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), who has been of immense help as we 
constructed the bill, and all the members of the subcommittee and of 
the full committee.
  I want to especially single out the vice chairman of the 
subcommittee, the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), who was helpful in the drafting of this bill, but also, 
most importantly, had the courage back in the wintertime to have the 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security created in the full committee. It was 
courageous. The other body followed suit. Otherwise, this Department 
would be appropriated by seven or eight different subcommittees on the 
House and Senate side. So I want to thank Chairman Young for doing a 
great job and having the courage to be a leader.
  And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the very excellent staff 
that we have had the good fortune to work with for only 3\1/2\ months 
since this subcommittee has existed. Just a short time, but this staff 
pulled together a bill from whole cloth and nurtured it through the 
process, and we owe a lot to this excellent staff on both sides of the 
aisle who put this very first bill together.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to thank these 
people for doing a great job.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2555) 
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, pursuant 
to House Resolution 293, 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.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage 
will be followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the rules and passing 
H.R. 1416.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 425, 
nays 2, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               YEAS--425

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     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
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--2

     Flake
     Paul
      

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Gephardt
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2141

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

                          ____________________