Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2555) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the hard working member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), another hard-working member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I certainly will.

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. 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. 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.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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.

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.

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. 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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer a question.

That is correct.

Five hundred million.

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.

I would guess so. But there are not many ocean ports in Minneapolis, I do not think.

I hear the same thing every day.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I supported the Department of Homeland Security back when most Republicans still opposed it, and I served on the Select Committee that created the new Department last year, so I expect to vote for this bill to fund the Department on final passage.

But before we get to that point, Members will have the chance to address several serious weaknesses in America's homeland defense system.

First, we need to pass the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the committee, to increase security at our ports, our airports, and our northern border, and to meet other vital security needs identified by the Bush administration. As it stands, the base bill does not address major holes in homeland defense, and the Obey amendment would plug some of those. And to do it, all we have to do is ask millionaires to take slightly smaller tax breaks than they are already getting next year. It is a reasonable trade: about 200,000 millionaires would give up just $5,000 of the over-$88,000 in tax breaks they are getting next year, and all Americans would get critical homeland security investments.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is not willing to ask millionaires to accept an $83,000 tax break next year rather than an $88,000 tax break, so they blocked the Obey amendment.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, addressing the second issue does not cost a dime, but it is fundamental to the success of the new Department of Homeland Security. As my colleagues will recall, when the Congress created this powerful new domestic security agency last year, several Members, Republicans as well as Democrats, expressed concern that its powers could be abused and turned against law-abiding American citizens. The former House majority leader, Dick Armey of Texas, was particularly outspoken on this issue.

Unfortunately, we have already seen an example of the danger that concerned Mr. Armey.

And that is why it is absolutely critical that the House act to protect the Department of Homeland Security from ever again being used as the Department of Political Security, as happened just last month.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security became involved in a partisan political dispute last month when it helped Texas Republicans hunt down law-abiding Democratic State legislators. Specifically, the Homeland Security agency charged with tracking terrorists was enlisted to help Texas Republicans trying to track Democratic lawmakers who had stood up to the Republican leadership in Austin. These Democratic legislators violated neither State nor Federal law. They simply used a legal parliamentary tactic, breaking a quorum, in a legislative battle to stop an unprecedented bill to unnecessarily redraw Texas's congressional districts. They employed a legitimate parliamentary tactic that Republicans have used at other times and in other places.

But when Abraham Lincoln broke a quorum in the Illinois legislature in 1839, his political opponents did not have the option of using the Department of Homeland Security to track him down. Neither did the officers of the U.S. Senate in 1988 when Senate Republicans tried to break a quorum.

Today, however, the Department of Homeland Security has enormous domestic intelligence powers. And somehow, on May 12, 2003, America's homeland security resources were employed to help Texas Republicans against their political rivals.

There is really no disputing this, Mr. Speaker. According to a report by the Department's own Inspector General, the Homeland Security Department's Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center spent its resources helping the Texas State police and the Texas Republican leaders directing the manhunt trying to find the plane of former Texas Speaker Pete Laney, a Democratic legislature who had flown to Oklahoma, to break the quorum. Many of my colleagues will remember Mr. Laney as the Democrat who introduced George W. Bush to the Nation on the night that he was declared President by the Supreme Court.

If my colleagues can believe it, Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security officials maintain that the 40 minutes they spent assisting in the Texas Republican's manhunt was only a ``minimal'' amount of work. That is a troubling excuse.

If the Department of Homeland Security spent just 1 minute in a domestic political dispute, then it was 1 minute too long. But they spent 40 minutes, which is longer than it took for terrorists to carry out their September 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

Even the office of a Republican member, Representative Ken Calvert, who represents the Riverside area where the AMICC is based, called to express shock at their involvement, at the Homeland Security Department's involvement in this political matter.

Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security officials also contend that they were tricked into getting involved. The report issued by the Department's Inspector General indicates that ``several individuals'' were instructing the Texas State police officer who got homeland security involved in the manhunt. According to a partial and heavily blacked-out transcript released by the Homeland Security officials, the officer was taking direct orders from a ``State representative.''

The Texas State police refused to identify who was directing them, and they quickly destroyed most of the documents relating to the episode. As a result, Homeland Security referred this case to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the FBI says it has no interest in investigating.

Fortunately, some Texas State police field notes survived the document purge and they indicate that Texas Republicans, Governor Rick Perry, State House Speaker Tom Craddick and others, personally instructed the State police during much of the manhunt which was run out of Speaker Craddick's office.

So as my colleagues can see, Mr. Speaker, a lot of disturbing questions remain unanswered about how homeland security resources were used to help the Texas Republicans track their political rivals.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: my goal here today is to protect the Department of Homeland Security. Its mission, safeguarding Americans against the threat of terrorism, is too important to risk undermining its credibility with the public.

But even if homeland security officials were misled, and the available facts do not clearly support that excuse, the entire episode still reveals the Department of Homeland Security's dangerous vulnerability to abuse.

Unfortunately, Homeland Security officials have refused to even acknowledge the Department's vulnerability or the threat it poses to their mission. Secretary Ridge has refused to release the complete tapes of the Department's communications with Texas officials or anyone else involved in this episode, despite legitimate requests from numerous Members of Congress, including the ranking members of the House and Senate committees that oversee the Department.

And the Department's Inspector General declared that its own agency's actions were ``appropriate.''

Mr. Speaker, that is so wrong that it is frightening. It is never appropriate to use homeland resources for partisan purposes, no matter how many minutes Homeland Security officials spend helping one political party, or which party they help. On the contrary, it is a dangerous abuse of power, one that threatens the liberties of all Americans, and one that risks public support for the Department of Homeland Security.

That is why the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, submitted amendments to the Committee on Rules last night to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security never again finds itself being used for partisan purposes.

Republicans on the Committee on Rules, however, seem not to understand the seriousness of the Department's vulnerability or the importance of closing this loophole immediately, because they blocked both amendments.

As a result, there is only one way to protect the Department of Homeland Security against political abuse: by opposing the important procedural vote known as the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider these two amendments to restore public trust in America's homeland security officials.

Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to put politics aside and oppose the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I would inquire as to how much time remains, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Members on the other side of the aisle and their colleagues in Texas sought to misuse Federal resources. Now, the Inspector General said, oh, but it was only 40 minutes, so it is no big deal. I would remind the gentleman on the other side of the aisle that the attack on the World Trade Center occurred in less than 40 minutes, and so Republicans in Texas sought to divert homeland security resources for 40 minutes.

What did they also seek to do? They also contacted the Department of Justice, tried to involve the FBI, tried to involve the U.S. Marshals Service, tried to involve the U.S. Attorney's Office in Texas. This was a blatant misuse of Federal resources, even if it were one minute. But it was not just one minute, and it was not just the Department of Homeland Security. It was other agencies of the Federal Government. They know it. It should never have happened and, hopefully, it will never happen again.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order two very important amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules last night and rejected by the Republican majority. Both of these amendments seek to protect the Department of Homeland Security against the type of political abuse it suffered when it ended up helping Texas Republicans hunt down their political rivals in a legislative dispute.

The first amendment, by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, would require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to implement written procedures for the use of personnel and resources for any nonemergency use of homeland security services; and would prohibit the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement from supporting Federal, State or local law enforcement or humanitarian efforts until that is done.

The second amendment, by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), a member of the Department of Homeland Security, would prohibit the Department from using funds for political purposes or for any other purpose not relating to protecting homeland security.

I am confident that all Americans and all Members of this House support this sentiment expressed in these two amendments. So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let me emphasize a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It will not prevent other amendments from being offered under the open rule. However a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from considering these two very important amendments that are critical to protecting the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect Americans against terrorism.

Also, assuming that the previous question passes, there will then be a vote on the rule, and I would urge Members at that point to vote against the rule so that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will have the opportunity to offer his amendment to put money back in this legislation to do the things that should have been done originally.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Again, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that to protect the Department of Homeland Security against political abuse, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

(during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.

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

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?

Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

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.

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?

Mr. Chairman, then let me simply raise a further parliamentary inquiry.

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?

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.

Mr. Chairman, on that I most reluctantly and respectfully move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

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. 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

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the committee.

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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a member of our subcommittee.

How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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?

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, we have a little trouble getting a precise understanding of what criteria are used.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. 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?

And our committee has recommended what?

Five hundred million. And this goes to a limited number of communities in the country?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I think he has given good advice to the body.