Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany 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.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the conference report on 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.

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

Madam Speaker, this is an historic day, consideration of the very first appropriations bill for the new Department of Homeland Security, which was stood up only March of this spring. This subcommittee was only stood up in March of this year, and I am very pleased with the work of our subcommittee, the committee and the Congress in bringing this bill from nowhere, no staff, offices, nothing, all the

way through the hearings and to be the very first conference to take place of all 13 bills and the very first considered by the House and on the floor at this moment. It is a record that the Congress can be proud of. It is a record that the administration can be proud of in proposing the Congress respond to the creation at the outset of a new Department of Homeland Security.

This conference agreement, Madam Speaker, will provide $29.4 billion for the new Department. That is an increase of $1 billion over what the President requested, and it is $535 million over what we are spending in the current fiscal year.

In the interest of time, I do not intend to list specific amounts proposed for the many programs and activities in the Department by the bill, but I do want to take note, Madam Speaker, of the substantial amounts of money that we have provided for homeland defense since the Nation was confronted with the ugly face of terrorism a little more than 2 years ago. I also believe it is important for us to take note of where these funds have gone.

Since September 11, 2001, governmentwide, the Congress has provided $75.8 billion for homeland security, including $43.9 billion to date just for the Department of Homeland Security. This bill provides an additional $29.4 billion, bringing the total appropriated since 9/11 to $105.2 billion governmentwide, $73.3 billion of that for just those agencies that now we include in the Department of Homeland Security.

This does not include funding, Madam Speaker, that will be provided in the other 12 appropriations bills, which could provide an additional $17.5 billion, but I want to talk just about the Department of Homeland Security and this bill.

Since September 11, here is what has been provided by the Congress for the following things: $513 million to secure our critical port facilities, including the $125 million that is in this bill; since September 11, 2001, $388 million for technology, such as radiation detectors for our ports and nonintrusive inspection technologies for cargo screening, including the $125 million in this bill for that purpose. These technologies have been deployed at our busiest land and seaports, including such places as Miami, Los Angeles and Newark.

$122 million since 9/11 has been provided for what has been called the Container Security Initiative, CSI, $62 million of that in this bill. CSI targets high-threat cargo before it comes to our ports. It has been fully funded since its inception. It is now in the process of being implemented in nearly all of the major foreign megaports so that we can search those containers before they reach America's shores.

Something I am very proud of, Madam Speaker, is the aid that we are providing for our State and local governments, the so-called first responders, our firefighters, our emergency technicians, our police and law enforcement people and the others, $20.5 billion, including the $4.2 billion that is in this bill in assistance to those people.

Madam Speaker, when we talk of homeland security, you cannot talk of that subject without talking about our hometown security, and this money is the biggest portion of the monies we appropriate for homeland defense.

Transportation security, of course, a continuing concern, but since September 11, 2001, we have provided a total of $15.7 billion, $5.2 billion in this bill, for passenger safety through the Transportation Security Administration, which was transferred to the new Department, including passenger baggage and cargo screening and the Federal Air Marshals program. $1.9 billion, including $400 million in this bill, has been spent on explosive and trace detection systems, including development, procurement and installation. This bill includes an additional $85 million just for air cargo safety, principally cargo shipped on passenger planes.

On the subject of cargo security, we dealt with a very difficult issue in conference, and that is air cargo on passenger planes. The House-passed bill included a provision that would have immediately banned airlines from carrying cargo. I would point out that 22 percent of all air cargo is shipped on passenger aircraft.

But we modified that provision in the conference and in the conference report that is before us today. In short, we do not prohibit airlines from carrying cargo. That would be an economic disaster for them. It is a $3 billion or $4-billion-a-year business for them, which would have meant, in my judgment, the death of the airlines. And we did not establish artificial deadlines that we knew could not be met.

Instead, we faced the problem head on with the reality in mind. We adopted language that directed the Secretary to immediately research, develop, procure and install certified systems that can screen cargo being placed on passenger planes at the earliest possible date. That machinery does not exist today. It has to be developed. No one knows how long that will take, but we direct the Secretary to immediately go at it without any delay and to do it at the earliest possible time.

In the meantime, this conference report requires that the Secretary of the Department enhance what is known as the known shipper program which is currently in place that prohibits high-risk cargo from being placed on passenger planes. It requires the Department to immediately issue requests for proposals on potential technologies to screen cargo, it requires the Department to conduct background checks on employees who handle cargo prior to being placed on the aircraft, and it requires the Department to launch a pilot program to use explosive detection machines in select locations to screen high-risk cargo.

I know that we will have additional debate on this issue during this debate and on the motion to recommit the bill. In the interim, I would hope that Members would actually read the conference report as it relates to cargo security. I want to read that portion of the bill. It is short and sweet and direct. I do not know how it could be more strong. We tried to find language that would be as directive and as clear as we could make it. Let me quote you the section, 521, from the conference report:

``The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to research, develop, and procure certified systems to inspect and screen air cargo on passenger aircraft at the earliest date possible. Provided, That until such technology is procured and installed, the Secretary shall take all possible actions to enhance the known shipper program to prohibit high-risk cargo from being transported on passenger aircraft.''

There is language in the statement of managers that backs that up and requires the Secretary to immediately forthwith issue a request for proposals from the industry and the private sector to come forward with proposals to secure that equipment. The best we can do until the equipment is here, Madam Speaker, is to be sure we know who is shipping cargo on passenger planes, and if we do not know who they are, and they do not have a record of being secure, then we search every piece that is going on today, and we encourage the continuance of that. All high- risk cargo is screened for security.

Now, Madam Speaker, I want to conclude these remarks by noting that some of our colleagues here believe we should add more money to this bill. I suspect that for some, no matter how much we spend, no matter how much we add in the name of homeland security, it will never be enough. We could spend every penny we could beg, borrow or steal around the world and spend it in the name of homeland security, and it would never please some people.

I would just state my firm belief that throwing dollars at homeland security will not necessarily add to our security. What we need is a sensible plan that spends sensible sums of money on the establishment and operation of a comprehensive and complete system for protecting our Nation, and I believe this conference report is such a sensible plan.

It provides resources for the legacy functions of agencies transferred to the Department such as Customs inspections, Border Patrol, Immigration, Presidential protection, Secret Service funding, Coast Guard spending for small-boat rescue systems, buoy research and protection, fishing rights enforcement and the like. We continue spending on those things that are not directly related to homeland security.

But we continue our commitment, Madam Speaker, to first responders.

We support innovative technologies in this bill and capital investments for transportation security, for maritime safety, for the protection of critical infrastructure in the country.

In short, Madam Speaker, this conference agreement is a very good step toward a comprehensive plan for homeland security that spends sensible amounts of money. It moves us forward in leaps and bounds as we seek ways to defend the homeland and prevent future terrorist attacks.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and to reject any motions to recommit it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, we agreed to move the firefighter assistance grants, but not the emergency management performance grants over to the Office for Domestic Preparedness. But, and this is a very important but, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), we include language that the fire grants have to continue to be administered ``in a manner identical to the current fiscal year''; and that means grants directly to those local fire departments, not through the States. We continue the peer review process of 300 firefighters from the new recruits to the fire chiefs, gathering to review the 15,000-plus annual applications for those monies; and we include the U.S. Fire Administration during the grant process.

We received a letter of support of that from the International Association of Fire Chiefs for the manner in which we moved those firefighter assistance grants over to ODP. So I think we have solved the problem.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman who had the courage and the vision at the outset to take the lead in the Congress, both bodies, to create the new Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations, on which the other body then followed through. That is the vision of this leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hard-working and productive member of this subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), one of the hardest working members of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a very hard-working member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

This is a good bill. As I said before, what we are after is sensible spending on a sensible plan. We are spending a lot of money on homeland security. This bill is $29.4 billion. Is it enough? I think it is enough for the plan that we have, and I would urge the Members to support the conference report.

Now, on this issue of cargo on passenger planes, it has been beaten to death today; and there have been some irresponsible statements made, in my judgment, about it. Here are the essential facts.

Technology does not exist to x-ray the cargo going on passenger planes in those large pallets. It just does not exist. We are directing the Secretary and giving him the money immediately to go out and begin procuring that information and that kind of machinery. The money is there, and the direction is there; and we are telling him to do it posthaste, at the earliest possible date. I do not know how much more direct we could be.

In the meantime, we say we do not want any cargo going on a passenger plane from somebody we do not know about. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said he could send that package as a terrorist on a plane and walk away, and it would be shipped and the passenger would not be on the plane. That is not so. If you are an unknown shipper, your package does not go on the plane until we search it; actually search it. Under the known-shipper program, no cargo goes on a plane that we do not know who it is from and where it is going and all about it. That is the essential fact.

In the bill we say to enhance that system until we can get the x-ray machines in place to actually x-ray the cargo. It is the best we can do, Mr. Speaker. It is the best we can do. And we are directing the Secretary to move posthaste to get the machinery in place.

I ask my colleagues to support the bill. Before closing, I want to thank my ranking member for his great work and all the members of the subcommittee, and especially the staff, who have carried us this far. I urge adoption of the conference report and defeat the motion to recommit.

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to homeland security, the rhetoric flies fast and furious. Everyone wants a safer, better-prepared America against both terror threats and natural events like Hurricane Isabel. But our actions do not always match rhetoric. In most respects, this conference report does a responsible job of allocating funds within the budget constraints we face.

I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the staff for their hard work and the many thoughtful decisions that are reflected in this bill. It is a clear and substantial improvement over the administration's request. I suppose one of the things Chairman Rogers mentioned was funding for port security. And I think it is obvious that we could spend more there, but every penny that has been appropriated by Congress was money not asked for by the administration.

Let me also pay particular respect to the hardworking staff. They are hardworking, they are professional, they are competent. From the minority staff, Beth Pheto; from our committee staff, Marjorie Duske; from my personal staff, Michelle Mrdeza, Jeannie Wilson, Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Tom MacLemore, Tammy Hughes, and Brian Dunlop. They have had a big job to do, and they have done it in a professional manner.

It is a simple fact, however, that the United States is not as well prepared as we can and should be to meet our homeland security challenges. We should do more.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate I will offer a motion to recommit that is very similar to the motion to instruct conferees that this House passed overwhelmingly 2 weeks ago. By a vote of 347 to 74, the House instructed conferees to insist on the highest possible funding levels for each homeland security preparedness and disaster response program and to require screening of cargo on passenger airplanes.

This conference agreement does not do that. One troubling shortfall is first responder funding which would remain flat at the 2003 level. The House bill would have provided a 4.5 percent increase, which is $200 million more. We know from our fire chiefs, police, and other first responders that more resources for equipment and training are urgently needed. The Council on Foreign Relations independently documented these needs in its recent report, ``First Responders: Dangerously Unprepared, Drastically Underfunded.''

I might add that adding money for such things as first responders is not simply throwing money at the problem. It is a substantial need, and we need to deal with it.

But homeland security preparedness is not just about more money. Across the board we need better management at the Department of Homeland Security. We need better plans. And in some areas we need more aggressive security goals. I put screening of cargo carried on passenger planes at the top of that list.

Mr. Speaker, 374 Members voted to instruct conferees to insist on the House amendment to require the immediate screening of cargo carried on passenger planes. This conference agreement comes up short in that respect. Instead, the agreement directs Secretary Ridge to research, develop, and procure systems to screen cargo on passenger aircraft at the earliest possible date. I do not think that is strong enough. The Department shows no eagerness to address the cargo problem. We should give them a deadline to act.

I might add that I sensed no particular interest, even, in this problem by the Department until the House passed its original amendment.

Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would set a deadline of October 31, 2004, for the Department to implement screening of cargo on passenger planes. We know who flies on passenger planes, but we still do not trust them. We still screen their bags. The same should be done with cargo shipped on these planes.

Airlines and others have argued that screening air cargo is a technical challenge that requires much more time to develop. This argument is similar to those made prior to 9/11 about screening passenger baggage: it cannot be done. How quickly we seem to have reworked old ways of thinking.

The motion I will offer will give the Department of Homeland Security 13 months to develop and implement a plan to screen cargo carried on passenger planes. Some may argue that is not enough time. I question how long we should make the American people wait.

I would also point out that this requirement would not affect every airport. The FAA tells us that 95 percent of all cargo carried on passenger aircraft is loaded at only 44 airports.

The lack of screening of cargo on passenger planes is not the only homeland security gap that exists today, but it is a huge one. Unless we make steady progress in closing these gaps, they will exist for years to come.

Let me add that the known-shipper program is probably better than not having anything, but I might remind Members that the gentleman who shipped himself in an air cargo crate was working for a known-shipper.

The Department's oversight of this program today basically consists of a few inspectors checking paperwork at airports. It is not a serious screening program today.

So I urge the adoption of the motion to recommit.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is accurate.

No. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I was not an advocate of the position in the conference committee. I thought we made a mistake in changing it. To be fair, the language in the bill retains some money as a separate line item, and there is language indicating the fire chiefs and the people involved in fire should be involved in the grant-making process.

I personally have questions about taking a program that was well run where it was and shifting it to another agency. I have a concern that what will develop are people who do not know much about the program making the grants.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern. We clearly need continuing strong oversight of this program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me take a few minutes to talk about another provision in the bill which I think is important and it relates to the CAPPS2 system.

TSA has been working on this system for almost a year, but there remains many unanswered questions about it. I am concerned particularly that those people who move residences a lot or do not have phone or other bills in their name, like children and some older Americans, will be singled out for further TSA screening, not based on risk, but simply because of these two factors.

I am also concerned that TSA will have no real system where passengers can correct incorrect information. The provision in the bill, which I originally offered and strongly support, requires GAO to review CAPPS2 as it exists today before funding can be obligated on a planned pilot program. TSA is allowed to test the system while GAO's review is being conducted.

The GAO's review would mirror the recommendations put forth by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General in the report they submitted

on May 20 on DOD's Terrorism Information Awareness Program.

It is unclear how many of these recommendations, if any, have been followed by the TSA or by the Department of Homeland Security. I suspect none. Those recommendations include testing the search tools and security of the architecture, ensuring that the system is secure from hackers, and that the proper policies and processes of the system are in place.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the passenger profiling system we are using today is a sophisticated or good one. However, we as a Nation need to be very careful as we proceed.

We recently heard about further problems about the TIA where a test conducted with Jet Blue, unknown to its passengers, matched up passengers and Social Security information and allowed some of this information to become public. We need to prevent this and any aviation passenger profiling system TSA develops, and that is what this provision in the bill seeks to do.

The bill has good language, and I hope it is fully implemented and followed by TSA.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

First, let me indicate my strong agreement with the statement of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) that getting good information and getting it accurately out to our local units of government is incredibly important. We focus on homeland security in this bill, but clearly, some of the most important work, even more important than anything we do in this bill, is the work that is done by the Intelligence Community and the FBI to gather appropriate information.

And I think we are still sorting out how we get that information, even to us in Congress and to local units of government; and that remains and should remain very high on our priority list.

Mr. Speaker, I urge people to vote for the motion to recommit. Under the process of the House, there will be no separate debate on that motion after the debate concludes on this bill.

Our motion is a reasonable one. It is a problem that exists. I think we all understand that what goes into the belly of the plane is really a problem. From the earliest days of discussion of airplane security following 9/11, my initial response was that the biggest problem was not what went in the plane itself but what went into the belly of the plane.

Frankly, at one time I was not aware of the amount of cargo that was being carried. Baggage we are screening; cargo we are not. We have technology that we can use. The problem is how we put packages together and we prepackage into big containers. That gives us some trouble. We could prescreen before we repackage everything.

The Department is planning pilot projects, and clearly there is technology they are going to use. They need a prod and a push. They have basically ignored the problem. There has been no interest in the industry, no real initiative from the administration and from the Department. I do not know any other way to get their attention than by putting a deadline in a bill.

We would have had a little more time frame within a motion I offered in conference for planning and then implementation, but I could not offer that same motion here because of the limits of germaneness. So we have an amendment that is reasonable, gives them over a year to put a plan in place and to implement it. If there are problems that are real, they can come talk to us. It is after the start of the next fiscal year.

If we want to deal with the issue of cargo security and cargo screening on airplanes, the only way we are going to get action from this agency is to put a real prod to them, and that is by adopting the motion to recommit and setting a time frame for when they have to have it done.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am, in its current form.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 374 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 374 is a rule that provides for the consideration of the conference report for the fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This is a standard rule for a conference report, providing for 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

As we continue the 2004 appropriations cycle, Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that the first appropriations bill, and now the first conference report this House considers, is the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. It has been over 2 years since the Nation was savagely attacked by a group of cowardly terrorists on September 11, 2001. Appropriate, decisive, and necessary steps in our defense and foreign policy have been evident under the leadership of President Bush through successful efforts to eliminate al Qaeda from its government- sponsored haven of Afghanistan, the elimination of the Taliban regime and, recently, to remove the ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and operations throughout the world in furtherance of U.S. national security.

The U.S. military has performed and succeeded with distinction each and every time we have called upon their gallant services. But much more work has to be accomplished in the homeland; and this legislation, Mr. Speaker, provides communities the necessary tools to effect necessary security efforts.

In this conference report, Congress is providing almost $30 billion to protect the homeland, $1 billion above the President's request.

The legislation provides $4.2 billion to the Office of Domestic Preparedness. I have seen firsthand the work of Federal dollars when supplemented with State and local funding to make our communities safe. In south Florida, the local governments and municipalities have taken extensive steps to ensure the safety of airports, seaports, utilities, and water supplies; but they still require the supplemental funding and grants that this legislation provides. With over 7,500 miles of land borders and 361 seaports, local authorities will always be the frontline of defense.

First responders are the key to the effective protection of our communities. In addition to many other programs, this conference report provides $1.7 billion for basic formula grants under the Office of Domestic Preparedness; $500 million for State and local enforcement terrorism prevention grants; $750 million for firefighter grants, and $725 million for high-threat, high-density urban areas.

To further ensure the safety of the American people, we have instituted very clear guidelines for grant eligibility. Local and State officials must create a multiyear homeland security plan. This will ensure that we are not just throwing money at the problem, but we are working to find comprehensive, long-term solutions to problems.

The Department of Homeland Security is also working hard to protect our ports of entry. There is $62 million in this bill for the Container Security Initiative. It is our belief that security at our ports should be the last line of defense, not a first.

Through the Container Security Initiative, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is working with the world's largest ports to screen cargo before it leaves for the United States. We now require 24-hour advanced notice for manifests of any cargo ship heading to the United States. This allows the Department of Homeland Security to see what is on a ship before it gets anywhere near the coasts of the United States. Through a sophisticated database screening system and ground personnel working with host countries, the Department is creating a frontline of defense hundreds, sometimes even thousands of miles away.

This conference report also provides $236 million for immigration services, $80 million of which is dedicated to alleviating the current unsatisfactory backlog of immigration applications. Under President Bush's Blueprint for New Beginnings, Director Aduardo Aguirre of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to achieving a maximum term of 6 months for immigration applications between the time of application and the time of swearing in, including for citizenship, specifically. Some parts of our Nation have seen the wait for citizenship applications grow and grow to the point that now it is not anywhere near 6 months, but rather years, in many instances. Effective funding to eliminate this backlog and streamline the process is essential, as is congressional oversight; and I want to thank

the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) who, in the Committee on Rules yesterday evening, again committed to continuing forceful oversight to make sure that this goal of the President and of the director really is achieved. Six months, 6 months should be the maximum time between an application for citizenship and the swearing in of a new American.

Easing the backlog will enhance national security by ensuring that those who should be in the country are given their citizenship papers and those who have goals other than enjoying American prosperity and freedom and may seek to potentially harm America are quickly removed from the consideration process and dealt with appropriately.

We must also allow those with a desire to enter the United States legally to do so without undue burden. Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the chairman and the administration to ensure that, with necessary security, the borders of this country remain open to those who seek freedom and prosperity.

Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo) for their important bipartisan work on this very important appropriations bill which I think, appropriately, is the first one that we bring in final form before our colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2555 is good legislation essential to our continued commitment to the security and safety of all of the citizens and the residents of the United States, the well-being of the homeland. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that all of the appropriations bills, all 13, have been promptly completed by this House. And I think that it stands as a testament to the hard work of the leadership of this House and especially of that very hard-working Committee on Appropriations under the leadership of Chairman Young and the subcommittee chairs.

We obviously can, working hard, fulfill our responsibilities as the Committee on Appropriations has done in this House. We do not control the other House. We wish that they would also complete their work in a timely fashion as this House has.

Now, this is the first appropriations bill that is finalized in the sense of a conference, the final product. We are looking forward to many others being able to be sent shortly to the President for his signature. But I feel very proud of the work of this House and especially the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations, who along with the rest of the subcommittee has been working long and hard, and not with empty shoeboxes but for the security of the American people, actually getting things done.

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

This has been an interesting debate. I feel very proud of the work that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his subcommittee have done in bringing forth this legislation, which is not only the first appropriation bill that is being sent to the President but one could say certainly one of the most important, if not the most important one.

Many important programs are funded. I happen to have followed, and feel very strongly, for example, that the funding in this bill and the oversight that Chairman Rogers is providing to make sure that the goal that President Bush has set for immigrants in this country who are seeking the great honor of American citizenship is met; that there be no more than a 6-month period between the time of application and swearing in for immigrants in this great land. We are going to follow up with oversight to make sure that that goal of President Bush and Director Aguirre is met. It is funded in this legislation.

Many important security initiatives are also funded. Chairman Rogers has stated, and I think it is important to reiterate that the Secretary of the Department has been instructed to forthwith devise and implement a system for the screening of all cargo. So in addition to the very important existing programs that have been improved and their funding has been increased to assure the security of the American people today, this legislation calls for the development forthwith of a program to screen all cargo. I thank Chairman Rogers and his committee for that work as well.

So this is very important legislation that is brought forth today with this rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her leadership on this bill along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

We cannot be debating a more important issue to our homeland security than how much money the Federal Government is going to spend over the next year to secure the people of our country. The President has been able to find a way to spend $87 billion in Iraq to protect American security on top of an additional $65 billion which we have already spent, but this administration can only find an additional 2 percent for homeland security. And after inflation, that pretty much gobbles it up.

While this theory that somehow or other al Qaeda is going to be attacking us 5,000 miles away and not here on our own shore belies the reality of where the threat is to the American people which is in their homes, in their places of work.

Now, just a couple of months ago on this House floor, we passed an amendment by a vote of 278 to 146. That amendment required that in addition to each of us who are passengers on planes in America having to take off

our shoes, having to put our cell phones through security, having to put our computers through security, having to put our carry-on bags through security, having to put our luggage, if it is too big, down and under the plane through security, that the cargo which goes on those very same passenger planes is also screened.

Believe it or not, although 22 percent of all air cargo in the United States is placed on passenger planes that we all fly on, there is no screening program. So as we all sit up in the passenger seats now, thinking that everyone who is seated with us in the passenger section has also been screened, and thereby we are safe because there are two air marshals, there is a double-reinforced steel door on the pilot's cabin, the pilot may have a gun, every passenger may be looking to see how they may respond if al Qaeda jumps up on that plane as to how they will tackle al Qaeda, but in the cargo bin of that very same plane, a package just this size, the same size as your luggage goes on that plane without being screened. Cargo.

Now, there is something wrong when your luggage, which is this size, gets screened but a piece of cargo does not get screened. Al Qaeda, not even flying on that plane, not even flying on that plane, can send cargo on that same plane unscreened, unseen, that destroys that plane. And the consequence would be another half-a-trillion or trillion-dollar hit to our economy.

So here is the bizarre situation in which we now see ourselves as the Republicans bring this bill out on the House floor, we, the average American, will have to go through airport security doing whatever it is that those screeners ask us to do. And we do not mind, we want security for our families, for our country, but going around the screening is the cargo on the very same plane.

By the way, with those people who put the cargo on the plane not flying on it, unless, if you followed this a couple of weeks ago, there was a young man who actually shipped himself across the country. Thank God that young man was a tourist and not a terrorist. That is where we are.

You can get a bomb onto a plane without a boarding pass. You can go right around the whole system that all of us have to go through to get on that passenger plane. So in this bill, rather than accepting the amendment which passed here on the House floor, which would require the TSA to construct a plan to ensure that there is a screening for cargo which goes on passenger planes, instead they removed it on a partisan, Republican-Democrat, vote in the conference committee, party line.

So while the passengers are having their nail clippers taken away from them because it may pose a threat to security on the plane, a piece of cargo can go on without any screening whatsoever. Now, that is just wrong. At Logan Airport, which I represent, 2 years ago, 10 al Qaeda, who had a sleeper cell in our city, got on 2 planes and terrorized our country and the world by then destroying the lives of not only the passengers on that plane from New England, but also 3,000 additional lives in New York City and a good chunk of our economy. We cannot run the risk on those very same planes taking off today, that al Qaeda could put cargo on the very same passenger flights without any screening. And I do not think the American people want to fly on planes that do not have cargo which is screened.

This provision, which has been deleted, has been endorsed by Coalition of Airline Pilots Association. All the airline pilots in America endorse the provision.

Let me read what the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 have to say about this provision. Here is what they say in a letter to us: ``The victims of Pan Am Flight 103 Organization is dedicated to and strives for passenger planes to be as secure as possible. Our goal is to have 100 percent physical screening of passengers, crew, luggage and cargo. Trading lives or dollars is totally unacceptable to the families who have paid the price of ineffective security.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Let me go through this once again. If you are on a passenger plane, and this is the size of your carry-on luggage, you have to put that luggage through screening, each person in America, no exceptions; Members of Congress, no exception. We are known trippers. They do not say to Members of Congress, oh, we know who you are, you are a known tripper, just bring that bag right around security. They do not say to businessmen who fly between New York and Boston every day, you are a known tripper, come right around security, we are only going to check these people who do not fly that often. No. Every single one of our carry-on pieces of luggage gets screened, and that is the way it should be, no exceptions for Members of Congress, no exceptions for business people, no exceptions for anybody.

But if you have got a piece of cargo, and they say you are a known shipper, they do not put it through any screening on the same plane that we are on.

But listen to this: If it is under 16 ounces, and, by the way, Richard Reid, who had explosive plastic material in his shoes had less than this, this does not get screened. There is no paperwork required. There is no known shipper program. Nothing, if it is 16 ounces and under to go on passenger planes if it is cargo.

Now, that is a huge loophole. Why can we not screen this? What is so complicated about screening this going onto passenger planes?

Why is there no equipment to do this? If you can screen a huge bag which we are all taking on our vacation for 10 days, how can a cargo shipper who is putting this on a plane not have it screened; does not even require paperwork, if we know an explosive could be put in it? It is wrong, and this bill should be defeated.

We owe the passengers of America the knowledge that as they put their families on planes to fly around this country that this package is being screened; that there is paperwork that is attached to it; that we know what is in it as we are putting it on a passenger plane. This bill says no, we are not going to have a requirement. We are not going to make that a part of the compact which we have with American people for homeland security.

We know there is no uranium or nuclear weapons in Iraq. We now know that. But we know that al Qaeda is still in our country trying to figure out ways of targeting the airline industry. Give them the right to know that their families are safe. Vote ``no'' on this homeland security bill until they give every American family that level of protection.

First of all, Madam Speaker, all packages 16 ounces and under are not checked by canine. They have a pilot project to check some of the packages 16 ounces and under. They do not have every 16- ounce package checked by canine.

Moreover, why in the world should everyone in these galleries, every American have to take off their shoes, put through their computer, put all of their packages through screening and then have a dog sniff however many packages the cargo shipper or the airlines feel like they should sniff? Why should those packages not get the same screening? Why should there be any risk of mistake?

They do not screen us by sniffing dogs. They do not have dogs sniffing our bags or our packages. They want to make sure that it is absolutely guaranteed that no one is getting on to the passenger section of a plane with an explosive. It is just wrong. It makes no sense, in fact. Why make people take off their shoes if someone can put it on in the belly of the same plane without the same screening? It makes no sense.

We should have a known-tripper program, then. Let 98 percent of all Americans get on with no screening because we know they are not a big risk. We do not say it that way. We say we are not taking any chances with the lives and safety of Americans on planes. We are going to have everyone go through. Regardless of status, regardless of income, everyone goes through. And I think it is reassuring to other Americans when they see Members of Congress taking off their shoes, putting their own carry-ons through. I think they know that we are serious about it. But they know we cannot possibly be serious when their nail clippers are being confiscated and they bite their own nails while they watch the cargo go onto the same plane with no physical screening at all.

Vote ``no.'' It is just not a good enough bill on the issue that we know al Qaeda still puts at the very top of their list the airlines of our country with passengers on them. We owe those people better 2 years after what happened on September 11.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. The Marriage Protection Act of 2004 is quite simply a mean-spirited, discriminatory and misguided distraction. It does not belong on the floor of the House of Representatives, not when there are so many important issues facing Congress and the American people.

Nearly 900 American soldiers have now been killed in Iraq, but the House is not talking about that today. Today the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issues its report on what happened and how to prevent it from happening again, but we are not talking about that on the House floor today.

This Republican leadership has failed to pass a budget, but we are not talking about that. Today we learn that, according to the GAO, the Pentagon has spent most of the $65 billion that Congress approved for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is trying to find $12.3 billion more from within the Department of Defense to make it through the end of the fiscal year. We should be talking about that.

We still do not have a transportation bill. The minimum wage has not been increased in years. Millions of Americans are unemployed and without health insurance. Homeland security needs are going unmet, but we are not talking about any of that in the House of Representatives today.

According to the New York Times, conservative activist and Republican adviser Paul Weyrich's solution to the bad news coming out of Iraq was to ``change the subject'' to gay marriage. I quote, ``Ninety-nine percent of the President's base will unite behind him if he pushed the amendment,'' Mr. Weyrich said. ``It will cause Mr. Kerry no end of problems.'' As for gay Republicans whose votes Mr. Bush might lose, Mr. Weyrich wrote, ``Good riddance.''

So instead of addressing the real concerns facing American families, the leadership of this House has decided to throw their political base some red meat because we all know exactly what is going on here.

Mr. Speaker, we can at least be honest about it. Last week the Republican leadership got beat badly in the other body. Not only did they not pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, Senate Republicans could not even agree among themselves what to vote on. So the Republican leadership, including the White House, decided they needed a win on something that beats up on gay people and they needed to do it fast, so here we are. They could not amend the Constitution last week so they are trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week.

The intent of this bill is quite clear, to close the door to the Federal courthouse for an entire group of American citizens simply because of their sexual orientation. It is enough to take my breath away. One of the most fundamental, sacred principles of our system is that every single American should have access to equal justice under the law, not some Americans, not most Americans, not just straight Americans, but all Americans. But not any more. Not under this bill.

Under this bill for the first time in our long history, a person can be denied access to the Federal courts when that person claims that a Federal statute violates the Constitution.

Further, this bill takes 200 years of jurisprudence based on the separation of powers and throws it in the trash.

Why? Because of the latest craze in Republican fund-raising appeals, the dreaded ``activist judges.'' To all of those listening to the debate today, I would encourage you to count how many times the phrase ``activist judges'' is thrown around. Make sure you have your calculator.

The problem is that the Republican leadership only goes after the so- called activist judges they disagree with. They had no problem in activist judges in Bush v. Gore. And make no mistake about it, if this bill passes its proponents will be back for more. Every time there is a court decision they do not like, they will attempt to prohibit the courts from exercising their constitutional oversight. Other issues will be on the table, civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, choice, environmental protection, worker protections, all will be at risk if a political majority in Congress disagrees with a Federal court decision. This bill would set a dangerous, dangerous precedent.

Finally, we hear a lot of rhetoric today from supporters of this bill protesting that they are not anti-gay, just pro-marriage. Well, the supporters of this bill have even named it the Marriage Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side, but my marriage does not need protection, and certainly not from the Republican leadership of this House.

This bill seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. There is no urgency, no credible court case challenging DOMA.

So let us work on the issues that matter most to our constituents. Let us tackle health care and education and homeland security and jobs, let us not change the subject for political reasons, let us not desecrate the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Cast your vote with an eye toward being on the right side of history. Look further than tomorrow's headlines, think about more than 30 minutes from now, think about 30 years from now. Remember that Members of Congress opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Remember that Members of Congress denounced a decision in Brown v. Board of Education in part because of activist judges. History has not been kind to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a strong defender of the United States Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, after the gentleman's comments, in his concern for activist Federal judges, I just want to state for the record that seven of the Supreme Court justices right now have been appointed by Republican Presidents, and pretty conservative Republican Presidents at that.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the time on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentlewoman how many more speakers she has on her side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what this bill is all about. It is a mean-spirited, unconstitutional, dangerous distraction. No matter what Members may think about gay marriage, the issue here today is whether or not we will take away people's fundamental constitutional rights.

Gay men and women pay taxes, serve in the United States Congress and in legislatures across the country, serve in our military, raise families that participate in the political process. The idea that they should be treated as second-class citizens and stripped of their constitutional rights is not only wrong, it is appalling.

Now, I am from Massachusetts and my colleagues will hear supporters of this bill talking today about the alleged catastrophe that has occurred in my State in the last few months; but you know what, Mr. Speaker, the world did not come to an end in Massachusetts when the State Supreme Court made its ruling. People got up and went to work and took their kids to school and paid their bills and lived their lives. The world kept spinning on its axis.

In the end, I think that is what is driving the supporters of this bill crazy. The outrage, the mass hysteria, the political momentum they expected from this issue just have not materialized. The American people are a lot smarter and a lot more tolerant and a lot more reasonable than the Republican leadership gives them credit for, which is why, Mr. Speaker, even if this bill passes today, I still have hope.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House took an oath that they would uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I hope we will do that today. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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