Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4567, and that I may include extraneous and tabular material.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to present to the body the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, the second such bill ever written by the Committee on Appropriations.

The bill before us provides $32 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. That is $1.1 billion above the current year, and $496 million above the President's request.

Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to believe that the Department was created just a year ago. There have been growing pains, but tremendous progress has been made. This is not an easy task to get our arms around, but I think the Department is succeeding, and their success is significant.

In just one year, for example, the Department has inventoried the Nation's critical infrastructure to include more than 33,000 facilities. The Department is identifying and reducing vulnerabilities at chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, national monuments, subway and light rail systems, and commercial sites. The Department has streamlined the process used to get the money out to first responders, setting up a one-stop shop. They continue to work with State and local governments to identify choke points so that money can flow quickly and get where it is needed. The Department regularly communicates threat information with State and local officials. Last year, the Department issued 41 warnings and advisory notices to State and local entities.

The Department established a two-way communications system with State and local homeland security personnel. This system was recently used in Kentucky when there was a smallpox scare in the small rural town of London. The information was quickly passed on to the Department and other Federal officials and appropriate action was immediately taken. The system works.

The Department has increased their presence to more than 38 ports in 18 different countries, prescreening all high-risk cargo before it reaches our shores. The Department has established three Homeland Security Centers of Excellence, created standards for first responder equipment, and installed and operated sensor systems in 30 high-risk cities to detect biohazards. Those are just some things that they are doing.

There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that more work needs to be done, but the Department is clearly on the right track, identifying our vulnerabilities, matching them to threats, and putting out specific guidance on ways to protect our homeland.

Fiscal year 2005 will be the second full year of operation for the Department. This bill continues the successes of the past year and includes initiatives to move us closer to our goals of prevention, preparedness, and response.

The bill provides $4.1 billion for our first responders, the first line of defense. These brave men and women are the first on the scene whenever there might be a problem. They are the backbone of our communities.

Since 9/11, this Congress has provided $26.7 billion for these first responders. Those dollars have helped train more than 285,000 police, fire, and emergency medical personnel around the Nation to respond to acts of terrorism, including weapons of mass destruction. No community in America, whether urban or rural, is immune from acts of terrorism. This bill strikes a balance between funding high-risk communities and providing support for States and localities, striving to achieve and maintain minimum levels of preparedness. For 2005 we propose an additional $1.175 billion to improve security in our urban and most populated areas.

The United States is the most open nation in the world. Our borders are the gateway for billions of dollars in commercial trade and millions of visitors. However, these same borders are potential entry points for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. This 2005 bill provides $9.8 billion for border protection and related activities. This funding will continue our efforts to create smart borders that keep terrorists out of America without stemming

the flow of commerce or legitimate travel. Funding will be used to operate and expand the container security initiative. Funding will be used to design and to identify, target, and search high-risk cargo before it enters our ports. We also fund advanced inspection technologies, including personal radiation monitors and detectors.

This legislation fully supports security for all modes of transportation, providing $5.7 billion to the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Air Marshals.

Since September 11, Congress has provided $14.3 billion for aviation security. Funding has been used for a host of purposes, including securing all of the cockpit doors on commercial flights, installing new technically advanced metal detectors at the airports, searching checked bags for explosives, and federalizing the screener workforce. We continue our commitment to aviation security in 2005 and fully fund the baggage and passenger screening efforts, as well as new technology to improve screening procedures at America's airports and giving Federal Air Marshals the funds they need to cover high-threat domestic and international flights.

The bill also includes $118 million for air cargo screening which will support the hiring of 100 new air cargo inspectors, development of new cargo screening technology, and expansion of canine enforcement teams. The bill also requires TSA to double the number of cargo inspections on passenger aircraft.

The bill funds several initiatives for rail security, providing $111 million for grants to high-threat systems, technology to screen passengers and baggage, and furthering intelligence-related activities.

Security assessments for the 14 subway systems and 278 light rail systems have been completed. And this will continue in 2005.

Additional funds are also provided for radiological, political, chemical and high explosives countermeasures to both rail and transit systems. There is $1.1 billion, Mr. Chairman, for the science and technology directorate. We are targeting funds for research, development, and the discovery of new technologies that can and are being used in our cities and towns today, including environmental sensors to detect biohazards and nuclear detection technology for cargo.

We also continue to fully fund research and development for antimissile devices for commercial aircraft, the so-called ``man pads.'' The bill includes $855 million for information analysis and infrastructure protection. These funds will be used to complete an inventory of critical infrastructure, enhance current communication between Federal, State and local homeland security personnel, and assist local communities as they put protective measures in place. Funds will be used to train State homeland security advisors and local law enforcement on best practices for protecting their critical sites.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill fully supports the traditional missions and operations of agencies that were merged into the Department including the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and, of course, disaster relief. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have produced the right mix for this Department. It builds upon the progress of the past year and furthers the protection of our beloved homeland.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, June 15, 2004.

Hon. Bill Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: Thank you for your letter regarding

H.R. 4567, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations

Act for fiscal year 2005. As you have noted, the bill is

scheduled for floor consideration on Wednesday, June 16,

2004. I appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage of

this legislation although it contains a provision involving

overtime pay that falls within the Committee's jurisdiction.

I appreciate your decision to forgo further action on the

bill and acknowledge that it will not prejudice the Committee

on Ways and Means with respect to its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

Our committees have worked closely together on this

important initiative, and I am very pleased we are continuing

that cooperation. I appreciate your helping us to move this

legislation quickly to the floor. Finally, I will include in

the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on

this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

We look forward to working with you in the future.

Best regards,

Harold Rogers,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very hardworking member of this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), who has been on the subcommittee and a very valuable Member.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the committee and the Congress. As overseers of homeland defense and security, I believe the committee acted responsibly in supporting the Department's request to make certain geospatial information management falls under the direction of the Chief Information Officer.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue

to yield, I look forward to working with the gentleman as we move forward and will certainly work to strengthen the report language in conference as events dictate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hardworking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a very hard-working member of this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, the authorizing committee.

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we take up the Weldon amendment now, then the Turner amendment and then the regular order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has worked tirelessly on this effort, this amendment, and the SAFER funding, and the committee thinks this is a wise move. Our first responders are in great need, and we depend upon them, and I am happy to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has offered what I consider to be a very helpful amendment. I think it is needed, and we are happy to agree to it. The ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security has been very helpful to us.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would remain at the desk, I really appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue before us, interoperability of communications amongst our first responders. One of the great lessons we learned, of course, out of 9/11--and the evidence has been ongoing since that time--is to go all out to try to create interoperability. It is a fairly complicated matter, as we now find out, and very expensive.

So the gentleman's amendment that would set aside more money to examine how this can take place really is not necessary, because the Department already has an ongoing operation to collect that data from the States and the communities and the first responder units.

Not all the States, of course, have decided what grant money will be spent on; and, of course, all the data is not yet automated. But the Office for Domestic Preparedness is currently building a master database, it is supposed to be completed in the next few months, to automate all state and local spending details, so we will then have what I think will be a fairly comprehensive inventory of where we are, which is what the gentleman, I think, is seeking in his amendment.

So I would hope, perhaps, that the gentleman might withdraw the amendment, with my assurance that the Department is already involved in exactly what I think he seeks in his amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, since 2002, we have included language in either the Transportation bill that preceded Homeland Security, and then the Homeland Security bill in 2004, language that limits the number of screeners to no more than 45,000 full-time equivalents. In my judgment, that language is necessary to force TSA to use taxpayer dollars reasonably and efficiently.

When TSA was first organized, it overhired and mismanaged millions of dollars. When they first came to the Congress when it was a part of the Transportation Department, they said we think we can get by with 30,000 screeners. They came back later and said no, we think it is going to be 35,000. Then they came back later and said 40,000, then 45,000, then 50,000, then 55,000. Finally, I said ``Time. Let us talk. What is going on here?'' And others did the same thing.

And so we went through their needs and we were careful to determine the optimum amount of people that would

be necessary to screen our customers at the airports.

During this zealous hiring phase at the outset, many airports, particularly small ones, had TSA employees screening a couple of passengers a day. For example, Clinton County Airport in New York, and I do not want to pick out examples necessarily, but there is no other way to do it; Clinton County Airport in New York had 20 screeners. How many passengers a day did they have? Twelve. Twenty screeners for 12 passengers a day.

Other airports, Massena and Adirondack, both in New York had the same number of screeners as daily passengers. What we had at that time, and people said so, is that TSA was an acronym for Thousands Standing Around, waiting for a passenger that needed to be screened.

Over the last 2 years, this cap has forced TSA to reshape that workforce so that more screeners have now been assigned in high-traffic airports and fewer in small airports, while still maintaining high levels of security. TSA has also begun to hire part-time screeners to work just during the peak hours, and the rest of the day when we do not need them they are not there. TSA recently created a summer plan to mitigate the anticipated effects of a busy travel season, given the size of the screener workforce. They are right sizing even as we speak.

TSA needs to do more. The agency is still too focused on screeners. It is doing a poor job of phasing in new technologies that would reduce our dependence on screeners.

Here are two examples of cost-savings that can result from using technology: Lexington, Kentucky, an airport I fly in and out of each week, invested just $3.5 million to install explosive detection machines in-line, with the conveyor belt, which allowed TSA to use 4 screeners per shift, rather than the 30 that would have been required using explosive trace detection equipment in the lobby. Not only that, people move through quicker.

There are even bigger savings in larger airports. San Francisco predicts that by having a complete in-line explosive detection system, it will require 100 less screeners, saving about $5 million in salaries and compensation each year.

Deleting this cap would be very premature. Instead of forcing TSA to continue to restructure its workforce to handle high-traffic levels at some airports, and to procure new equipment that could greatly reduce our reliance on screeners, this amendment would permit TSA to request an exemption from this cap and return to the days of ``thousands standing around.''

If we delete this cap, Mr. Chairman, 5 years from now I am convinced we will have 70,000-plus screeners and no new technology in place, and we are back to where we were.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman makes a very good point. The TSA is still operating under the system where they hire nationally. So that when there is a vacancy in San Francisco or New Jersey or where have you, that has to work its way up to the national headquarters, and it is a very inefficient way for TSA to replace people who have quit their job. We are trying to force the Department to at least regionalize the hiring process, and I would like to see it even localized so that we can replace people quickly, but the gentleman makes a good point.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue forward, and it is an important issue. But the Science and Tech Directorate of Homeland Security has assured us and the Coast Guard that all elements of the Coast Guard's R&D program will remain under the direct management of the Coast Guard.

I recognize the gentleman's concerns. We will work with him on this subject if the authorization bill retains R&D funding within the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Chairman, I make 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 pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law by imposing additional duties.''

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, in this bill we attempted to be fair to everyone. We do not have all the money in the world. If we did, we could do perhaps what New York wants; but we do not, and we have got a whole country to deal with. There are two basic funds of money that we are talking about. One is the so-called formula funding grant program, and the other is specifically for the high-density, high-threat urban area fund. Two funds. The first one the formula grant program, 40 percent of that money goes to all the States; and everyone gets .75 percent, less than 1 percent of a fund that this year is $760 million total.

But 60 percent of even the formula grant program goes to States that are most populated, and I did some research. The money that went in that fund, in this year's bill, is $1.15 billion. Of the money that goes to New York State, in 2004 New York City got over half of the State money, in addition to the urban grant fund.

Now, fair is fair; and I want to be fair about this. New York City is a target. Everyone admits that. Other large urban areas are targets. Everyone admits that, and we want to help prepare. We want to do all that we can to be sure that New York City and the other large cities have all the monies that we can afford to pay for the Federal portion of what the local fire departments and the police departments and the EMT units and all do routinely. A portion of what they do is the counterterrorism effort that we are paying them for. Most of what they do, of course, are city and local and State duties.

But there is a limit to what we can do. Now, what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is take monies out of the formula grants that goes to Kansas, Kentucky and Florida and the other States and puts $450 million out of that account into the urban area's account. We already did a lot of that in the bill. We have already reduced the formula grants, already $450 million below last year's level. And the urban area grants in the bill are $280 million above last year's level. We have already robbed Peter to pay Paul, and now Paul wants more at the expense of Peter.

We have got to be sure that the rest of the country is protected as well. Just because you are not a large urban area does not mean that you are not at risk from terrorist attack. Hundreds of U.S. agricultural documents have been found in the al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan and other places. It has been reported that a significant part of al Qaeda's training manual is devoted to agricultural terrorism, a frightening fact when you recall the reported terrorist interest in crop dusters.

No community is immune from terrorism. We were reminded of that on 9/ 11 when Maine played a major part in the staging of the attack on New York City, little unpopulated Maine. We do not want to ignore Maine again.

In 1984, followers of Bhagwan Shree poisoned salad bars in 10 restaurants in The Dalles in Oregon, population 12,000, the largest germ warfare attack in history.

The terrorists that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 trained in rural Pennsylvania, 30 miles from Three Mile Island in the months prior to that attack. Timothy McVeigh, who destroyed the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, planned his attack and purchased the materials in Herrington, Kansas, population 2,500. In January 2000, Yousef Karoun was arrested in Blaine, Washington, population 3,600, after authorities determined he was on the FBI's lookout list and found evidence of nitroglycerin on his vehicle. United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into Shanksville, Pennsylvania, population 245, after being hijacked. Local fire departments quickly responded. In the fall of 2001, two people linked to an international terrorist group were arrested in Beecher Falls, Vermont, population 238, after attempting to cross the border.

In September 2002 a suspected terrorist cell was broken up in Lackawanna, New

York, a city south of Buffalo, population 20,000. Five convictions. And on and on and on.

Mr. Chairman, we have treated the urban areas in this bill better than we did in the current year, and we cut the formula funding for the rest of the country by a huge amount in this bill. We think we have already treated the urban areas fairly. If we had more money, we could treat them even better; but with what we have, we think we have treated them fairly. I would urge Members to reject this amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's statement very much, and he is exactly correct. We love New York City. I cannot wait to go there for the convention in a few weeks.

But let me just say this: In the High Density Urban Area Grant Program out of which New York will receive a good sum of money, we are almost at the President's recommended level. We are at $1.175 billion, which is almost twice what it is now. We have almost doubled the money in that account.

In addition to that, the State of New York--and New York City will get roughly half of the money that goes to New York State. That kitty is $750 million. It only leaves $500 million for everybody else. Give me a break.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement.

Now, there is $900 million in the high-threat, high-density urban area grant program. There is also $100 million in the rail and transit security. That would go to the big cities, would it not?

And is there not $125 million for port security? The last time I checked the ports were in large cities, were they not?

Then we restored the $50 million for the metropolitan medical response system. Metropolitan means large city, does it not?

So when you add all of those moneys together, this bill is chock full of money for the big cities; is that not correct?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, do they mention Columbus, Ohio?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I think we are all in agreement on the idea that the moneys eventually should go based on threat and risk assessment. We are all headed in that direction. I am trying to push the Department, certainly by the end of this year, to establish minimum essential requirements for every community so that everyone, based on a graduated size of the community, would have requirements to be prepared, based on the threat that faces that particular community.

That is a really complex undertaking. But it is being undertaken. Hopefully, the 2005 moneys we are appropriating will be spent based on that plan. It is not quite in place yet. That way, we would all be satisfied, rural, big city, medium-sized city, what have you. If you are a city of 5,000 people, there is not much preparation perhaps you need, unless you are near a nuclear power plant or a big dam close by or what have you, which can be modified in that fashion. If you are a large city, a New York, a Washington, a Seattle, obviously you are going to get lots of money. But we are all headed toward the same direction.

I do not want us to get sidetracked, as we seem to be doing with this debate, pitting region against region. That is not right. We are all one country.

If the gentleman will yield further, there are other threats besides Osama bin Laden. As I earlier said, and perhaps the gentleman was not here at the time, there are all sorts of groups out there that have already caused harm, in such places as The Dalles, Oregon, population 12,000.

Timothy McVeigh, who bought his materials in Harrington, Kansas, population 2,500. So there are all sorts of threats out there in cities of all sizes.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, briefly, since the gentlewoman says the Mayor is listening and says he only got $90 million in 2003, the figures that I have are different.

The city in 2003 received $256 plus million, and I will get back with the gentlewoman on 2004 in a minute.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I just want to point out to the gentlewoman from Texas that under this amendment the State of Texas would lose $23.5 million.

Mr. Chairman, this debate could go on a long time. I ask unanimous consent that all debate end after 10 minutes, that the time be controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and this gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the members and coaches of the 2004 Hazard High School varsity cheerleading squad. This year alone, the squad has cheered their way to four first place victories, an admirable accomplishment for a small- town team competing against much larger schools.

The Hazard cheerleaders began their winning streak in January, when they secured the top spot in the annual WYMT-TV Mountain Classic Cheerleading Competition. In February, the team traveled to Richmond, KY, where they competed with more than 50 cheerleading squads in the Kentucky All ``A'' State Cheerleading Competition. Their enthusiastic and skillful performance landed the squad with a first place showing. The team also received the coveted Team Spirit Award.

After their impressive showing in Richmond, the cheerleaders finished first at the KAPOS 54th District and KAPOS 14th Regional competitions, and earned the right to compete in the state competition. The squad earned an admirable fourth place finish in the statewide competition, marking the first time a Hazard squad has placed in the top five since they won the state championship in 1970.

It should be noted that the Hazard Cheerleaders accomplish as much during their regular season as they do in competitions. The squad cheers at all football games and basketball games, stirring up school spirit through their energetic routines and skillful stunts. They also have a commitment to community involvement, often volunteering at charitable organizations and local homeless shelters. I am proud of their contributions to Eastern Kentucky, both in cheerleading and their community.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hazard High School cheerleaders for their tremendous success this year. I ask each of my colleagues to join me in honoring Hazard High School, coaches Cathy Hammonds, Vivian Carter, Lisa Combs, Wayne Noble and Shane Noble, and each and every talented member of the squad: Casey Smith, Lindsey Fields, Sydney Napier, Sarah Johnson, Jennifer Bryant, Jennifer Brock, Ashlei Mullins, Amber Hammonds, Paige Whitaker, Roxanne Whitaker, Marry Simms Carter, Kelly Hoskins, Becky Jo Brotherton, Sarah Hall, Whitney Francis, Brandi Hayes, Katie Hanson, Kayla

Sandlin, Chelsea Combs, Gabriella Woods, Reagan Kilgore and Lauren Delpont.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the players and coaches of the 2004 Hazard Bulldogs basketball team.

On February 8, 2004, the Hazard High School Bulldogs defeated Bishop Brossart High School by a score of 43-38 to win the Kentucky All ``A'' State Tournament. Under the leadership of Coach Kevin Spurlock, the Bulldogs finished the season with a record of 20-4. This is a remarkable accomplishment that merits recognition.

With 49 years since their last championship title, the Bulldogs' recent victory has been a long time in coming, and one that was attained through hard work and determination. During the entire championship game the Bulldogs fought ferociously, tying at the half and gaining a four-point lead after the third quarter. Smart, calculated plays during the final minutes pushed the Bulldogs over Bishop Brossart and secured a safe five-point win.

In Kentucky, basketball is something of an institution. It embodies a tremendous spirit of teamwork and dedication, and the Bulldogs have shown that they possess both characteristics. The Bluegrass State is widely known for producing great basketball teams, and the Hazard Bulldogs are no exception. Winning the state tournament marks a tremendous milestone in their journey for excellence, and I am proud of their accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Bulldogs for their tremendous success, not only in tournament play but also throughout the entire season. Through their hard work, determination, and skill they have made Eastern Kentucky very proud. I ask each of my colleagues to join me in honoring Hazard High School, Coach Kevin Spurlock, all of the assistant coaches, and each and every talented player on the 2004 Championship Bulldog team: Hank Gabbard, Stephen Sizemore, Parker Carter, Eric Mullins, Robert Lyttle, J.J. Hously, Lamar Williams, Jon Francis, Chase Patrick, Durell Olinger, Justin Wallace, Chuckie Osteen, Jon Walker, Tyler Bailey, and Justin Hicks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of yet another magnificent event that has taken place in my family.

On August 31, 2003, my youngest son John and his wife Tracy gave birth to their second daughter. Sydney Elizabeth Rogers weighed 6 pounds, 9 ounces and was 20 inches long. Sydney is a happy, healthy baby girl and has brought much joy to our family. Her grandmothers, Cynthia Rogers and JoAnn Walker, and I are all too happy to shower Sydney with love and affection.

At a time when the world is filled with much uncertainty and turmoil, my announcement of this beautiful baby girl is a welcome breath of fresh air. As the Congress works to make America a better, safer place to live, I will be certain to keep precious little Sydney in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of our colleagues join me in wishing all the best to Sydney Elizabeth Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, in the same bipartisan spirit of cooperation that has characterized Kentucky delegations to this great body, it is my privilege tonight, as dean of our delegation, to present to you our newest Member and America's newest Congressman, Ben Chandler.

Ben won the special election a week ago tonight to fill the unexpired term of our colleague and now Governor, Ernie Fletcher.

The Chandler name in Kentucky is legendary. Ben's grandfather, the late Albert ``Happy'' Chandler, was a twice-elected Governor; U.S. Senator; and baseball commissioner, who, by the way, presided over the integration of Major League Baseball.

But young Ben has earned his own stripes. He has just completed two terms as Kentucky attorney general, and before that the elected State auditor, and was nominated by his party for Governor last year.

Ben Chandler follows in the seat held by a long list of national leaders, including our own Governor Ernie Fletcher. One of the greatest Speakers of this body held this seat, Henry Clay, twice Speaker, three- time candidate for President, Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, the Great Compromiser of pre-Civil War years; Kentucky's greatest national legislator, that is until recently, of course. In fact, Henry Clay made history very early in his congressional career. He was elected Speaker immediately upon being sworn in as a freshman from this very Kentucky district.

Mr. Speaker, I like Ben Chandler, but maybe you and I had better keep an eye on him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), our colleague from Kentucky's Fourth District.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honored to welcome Kentucky's new Member of Congress from the Sixth District, Ben Chandler, and I am proud to present him at this time to the body.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 28, I was unavoidably detained due to the inclement weather and was not present for votes on S. 1290, a bill to extend for 6 months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall No. 10 and ``nay'' on Rollcall Nos. 8, 9, and 11.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 27, I was unavoidably detained due to the inclement weather and was not present for roll call votes numbers 6 and 7. The votes were on H.R. 1385 and H.R. 3493, respectively. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both measures.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 4, I was in Kentucky, tending to official business, and was not present for rollcall votes No. 602 and 603. The votes were on House Concurrent Resolutions 176 and 94, respectively. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both measures.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 20, I was in Somerset, Kentucky, tending to official business, and was not present for rollcall votes #563-565. The votes were on House Resolutions 356, 400, and on H.R. 3288. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all measures.

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

I had not intended to speak on the rule. I was going to wait and present the material that I have on the debate on the conference report itself, but I cannot let the gentleman's remarks go unresponded to at this point in time.

It is just not so that anyone can place cargo on a passenger plane without it being checked and screened. That is incorrect. We have a very sophisticated system in place today that verifies whether or not you are a known and trusted shipper. If you are not so certified by the government after having been investigated and your background checked and all of those procedures, if you are not a known shipper, they will search your packages you put on the passenger plane.

The gentleman is incorrect, and I do not want it to be said nor heard around the world that you can get by with the things he said. You cannot. Today you cannot. And yet in this bill, in the conference report, we direct the Secretary to research, procure and install machinery that can x-ray all this cargo going on passenger planes. We do not have the equipment today to do that, and so we rely upon the known shipper program; and if you are not a known shipper, we personally inspect your cargo.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am not characterizing the comment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). All I am saying is do not be overly alarmed, for goodness sakes.

There is a program in place while we get the machinery to actually x- ray the cargo that goes on passenger planes. We do not have it now, and it is going to take some time to develop, but in the meantime we are doing the next best thing, and that is certifying who it is we are receiving cargo from to put on those planes and directing the Secretary to proceed forthwith at the earliest date possible to secure the machinery to make that happen.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman not aware of the container security initiative where we are checking these containers at 24 megaports around the world, even as I speak?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield briefly on that point, I agree with the gentleman, we should do all we can. However, it is inaccurate to say we are only checking 3 percent of these container pieces. We are doing a lot more than that.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not take that time.

I cannot believe the gentleman from Massachusetts would stand before the body and make the statements, as he did, without knowing the facts. The 16-ounce package the gentleman held before us and said this is not searched, this is not searched, this is not searched, all packages under 16 ounces are checked by canine teams. And I would trust the canine teams more than the gentleman from Massachusetts on this point.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2555, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to go to conference on H.R. 2555, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2555) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides $29.4 billion for the new Department of Homeland Security. That is an increase of over $1 billion above the amounts proposed by the President, and it is $535 million above the current year's spending.

This motion by the gentleman from Minnesota would result in more spending. We could spend all that we could beg, borrow, or steal in the name of homeland security, and it still would not be enough, according to some people. Throwing dollars at this problem of security will not necessarily add to our security. What we need is a sensible plan, spending sensible sums, for a comprehensive and complete system of protection of our people.

I think we have such a plan. And I am willing to accept the gentleman's motion and to do my best to meet its goals. But the motion gives me an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the day that changed America, 9-11, to reflect on that awful day, but also to reflect upon how far our Nation has come in protecting us from another such event.

The presumption in the motion is that we are not spending enough money to protect our Nation's homeland. I think the question is, is the glass half empty or is it half full? I think it is half full. We are not there yet, but we have come so far. We have come so far in these 2 years in protecting the country.

Since September 11 the Congress has provided almost $76 billion for homeland security funding across the entire government. For the 22 agencies that now make up the new Department of Homeland Security, the Congress has provided almost $44 billion through the current year, and then we add in the 2004 bill an additional $29.4 billion, which brings the total to the Department for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 to $73.3 billion. Protecting our borders is the first line of defense against terrorism. We include in the bill $9 billion for border protection and related activities. That is an increase of $400 million over fiscal 2003. Including $2 billion for U.S. Coast Guard homeland security activities.

We make innovative technology and capital investments a priority, recognizing that our borders will only be secure when we use a combination of people and technology. But let us talk about the borders just a minute.

We have added inspectors, special agents, border patrol agents to these borders, we have added 5,400 new personnel at those borders. That increases the coverage in our ports by 25 percent. In addition to that, we have added 4,100 Coast Guard personnel to protect the ports, to protect the waterways, to increase the intensity and numbers of inspections at ports of entry into the country; 4,100 new Coast Guard people on the job today that were not there before.

We will continue, and hear me now, we will continue to inspect 100 percent of all high-threat cargo and high-threat vessels coming into our waters. We cannot discuss in this open forum all that is being done in that respect. We would have to go into a classified briefing to do so, which we have done. I cannot talk about all of those things, but we are inspecting 100 percent of all high-threat cargo and high-threat vessels coming into our waters.

We have heard a lot about port security. In this bill we add $100 million, another down payment to secure the critical port facilities. We add that to the $388 million that is already appropriated for port security grants, a total funding level now of $488 million. Radiation detectors, other technology, $263 million for cargo screening and these technologies have been deployed at our busiest land and sea ports including Miami, Los Angeles, Newark. And we include in this bill another $129 million for these technologies, which brings that total to $392 million.

It has been said that we need to search these container pieces coming to us offshore before they get here. And that is precisely what the administration proposed and the Congress agreed to. We provide $60 million for a thing called the Customs Container Security Initiative, fully funding that effort since it began. We include $62 million in this bill bringing total funding for that project to $122 million. And with that money, we are now in the process, either in the process or already searching these container pieces at 20 of the mega-ports around the world that ship us 80 percent of our container freight, searching those targets, that high-threat cargo before it ever reaches American ports so that we do not have to do it here.

We also place a very high priority on funding our State and local first responders. Homeland security, we have all said, is hometown security. And our hometowns are protected by our local firemen, local police, emergency personnel and the like. We have not shunned them and it is essential that they have the resources to address the needs of our hometowns. We will never forget the heroism on 9-11, of those wonderful first responders, so many of whom unfortunately gave their lives on 9-11. We include $4.4 billion in this bill for those people, law enforcement, fire fighters, emergency personnel. And since September 11, the Congress has provided nearly $21 billion for those State and local governments, for terrorism prevention and preparedness, most of which is going to our local first responders. Almost $21 billion for your firemen, your first responders, your emergency technicians, your policemen, and more is on the way.

Science and technology efforts are critical to improving security, increasing the efficiency of what we do and increasing the costs. We include in this

bill $900 million for science and technology, including $60 million to design, develop and test anti-missile devices for commercial aircraft, $60 million.

Then, of course, transportation security for those who fly. Since September 11, we have provided a total of $10.3 billion for passenger safety through the Transportation Security Administration, including passenger, baggage, and cargo screening. An additional $5.172 billion is included in the fiscal 2004 bill. And since September 11, we have included $1.5 billion on explosive and trace detention systems, including the development, procurement, and installation. We include in this bill $335 million more to buy more of these systems, as well as $50 million for air cargo safety, and $40 million for research on next generation technologies.

We come to this question that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has brought to our attention, and that is the safety or security of cargo on passenger planes. I think we all agree with his goal. It is our goal. It has been the goal of this subcommittee since we came into being, it seems like a long time ago, but it was only back in March that the subcommittee came into being. And, frankly, I am very proud of what our subcommittee has done. We have begun a staff. We had to find a place to meet. We had to hold hearings in Department where many of the principals were not yet sworn into office or confirmed, get the budget together, hold hearings, and then finally mark up a bill. And I am very proud to say that we were the first of the 13 appropriations bills brought to the floor and passed through the body, and we are the first to go to conference with the Senate. That is quite a record.

I am proud of the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, and I am especially proud of the staff on both sides of the aisle who have done a remarkable job of pulling all of this together.

We included in this bill $50 million for air cargo screening. The Senate bill has 60. I think we can go higher and give the TSA the resources it needs for the development of an air cargo screening program for domestic and foreign cargo carriers and to develop a risk- based screening system, to identify pieces of cargo that require closer scrutiny even while we work at post-haste speed to develop the machinery that does not now exist to absolutely search all pieces going on passenger or cargo planes. Funds are also provided to research and development, new technologies that would make this happen.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the motion to instruct. It is the goals that we share. We share the same goals that the motion elicits. I think we have developed a good bill. I am very proud of the efforts of the Nation since 9-11 to come to grips with a new terror, a new threat to our security. The President has led the effort on both fronts, that is to take the battle to the terrorists on their own turf rather than wait until they come for us here, but at the same time preparing the Nation itself to defend itself against a terrorist who might make it through.

Do we have more to do? Absolutely. We have scratched the surface. But we have made a lot of progress and we will continue to make that progress.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close.

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