Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this is a stripped-down version of the disaster supplemental. It is $983.6 million purely for disaster relief activities. It fully funds all the anticipated Federal disaster relief activities for the balance of this year. The administration, you recollect, had requested $1.55 billion for these activities, but a portion of that request was for fiscal year 2004 activities; and because we anticipate that we will be able to complete the 2004 appropriations bill before October 1, it is not necessary to include 2004 moneys in this 2003 supplemental. All fiscal year 2004 program requirements can be accommodated in the regular 2004 bill.

Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding in the Midwest and South have taken their toll on the disaster relief fund. Combined with severe snow and ice storms this past winter and the Columbia shuttle recovery efforts, this fund will be depleted within the next 2 weeks. As of July 21, the balance in the disaster relief fund was $89 million. FEMA is currently spending at $5.7 million a day; and as expenses for Hurricane Claudette come in, obligations will jump to $6.3 million a day. That means the fund will be gone on or about August 4.

FEMA has done all they can to hold expenses down. They have put all nonessential projects on hold, including all reconstruction and mitigation projects. In total, $400 million in spending is on hold. The only activities being supported by FEMA are emergency and essential services such as debris removal, individual assistance, shelter, and medical care.

To date for fiscal 2003 there have been 32 major disasters declared, 15 emergencies and 18 fire management events. We are at the height of the wildfire and hurricane seasons, and an active hurricane season is predicted.

FEMA estimates that they will need about $10 million a day to support Federal disaster relief effort for the months of August and September. The proposed $983.6 million in this bill assumes that FEMA will fully fund these efforts as well as resume work on mitigation, repair and reconstruction projects. It also assumes there will be a zero balance in the fund on September 30.

I urge support for this supplemental. It is streamlined. It is stripped down to its bare essentials. Without it, FEMA funds will dry up August 4, leaving communities and individuals without Federal assistance and laying off personnel.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, unanticipated disasters. There is no way obviously to accurately predict what Mother Nature is going to do. This is not a huge amount of money, as it goes, for disaster relief. It is simply replenishing or allowing that fund to be able to exist until we can get through the next 2 months.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, that is something I will yield to the big chairman on. I am not conversant with the details of it.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, what portion of all Federal spending is actually appropriated by the appropriations?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, is that two-thirds of the Federal spending that the mandatory accounts account for? Are those accounts adding to the Federal deficit even as we speak?

Has the Committee on the Budget done anything about mandatory spending?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, assuming, and the gentleman is correct about its being in the budget as a request, but where is the reconciliation bill that makes that happen?

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

Mr. Chairman, would the chairman of the subcommittee engage in a short colloquy with this Member?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) for a very good, solid, comprehensive, evenhanded bill to address our energy and infrastructure needs for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, since September 11 the Federal Government has undergone its most comprehensive reshuffling since World War II with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. As such, we have realized that a terrorist attack, nuclear or otherwise, could come not from a foreign state, but from our own backyard, using unconventional means to disrupt the lives of peaceful citizens.

Mr. Chairman, how many places in this country do we store spent nuclear fuel, and where and how is this nuclear spent fuel being stored?

Over half the material is outside the protection of the main building?

So, as it stands, probably until 2010 this highly radioactive material is sitting there exposed at most of the power plants in the country, outside the nuclear reactor building, waiting to be transported to Yucca Mountain. Is that correct?

Given the volume of the material we are dealing with and the volatility of that material and its being subject to being attacked, is there a better way to address the issue of storage between now and 2010 and then proper shipment to Yucca Mountain?

When the gentleman talks about dual-use casks, could the gentleman tell me what he means by that?

So the cask you are talking about would serve two purposes, be dual use: one, it would safely protect the material while we are waiting around for Yucca to be finished; and, two, you would not need to change it into another container to ship it out there.

What I am most concerned about from my perspective is the storage of material at the nuclear power plant pending Yucca Mountain shipment, the years we are having that material laying there exposed to perhaps an attack. By the way, each one of these nuclear plants is within 20 miles of an airport.

Would these dual-use casks that the gentleman refers to, would they be impervious to such an attack?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. From my perspective on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations, I strongly support quickly moving toward these dual- use, thick-walled containers which can be used for storage and transportation to Yucca Mountain, and, in the meantime, give us maximum protection from the attack on that material causing great possible harm. This would reduce the potentially catastrophic effects of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant.

I look forward to working with the chairman on this issue and congratulate the gentleman on a great bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day. Only 4 months after the Department of Homeland Security was stood up, we now consider in the Congress the very first ever Homeland Security appropriations bill on the House floor.

The creation of the Department is by far the largest reorganization of the Federal Government in its history. Mr. Chairman, 180,000 employees, 22 security-related agencies merged into a single unit, agencies as diverse as the new Transportation Security Administration, FEMA, the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and some 18 other agencies throughout the government.

But, Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the breadth of the problem that we face.

On our borders, we have to protect ourselves: 2,000 miles of border with Mexico; 5,500 miles of border with Canada. There are 9,500 miles of shoreline. We have 157 ports of entry, 361 seaports. There are 440 million visitors who arrive in our country by land, sea, and air each year. There are 118 million vehicles that come here, 11 million of them trucks; 2.5 million railcars; and 17 million cargo containers that cross through our ports every year.

In transportation, there are some 768,000 commercial flights that enter the U.S. at 429 commercial airports, carrying some 635 million passengers a year. We have 18,000 general aviation airports. We have 143,000 miles of freight railways, 3.9 million miles of highways, and 550 major public transportation systems throughout our country. There are 590,000 bridges. There are 526,000 interstate trucking companies, 43,000 of them certified to carry hazardous materials.

We have 150 oil refineries, 86,000 miles of crude oil pipelines, 278,000 miles of natural gas pipelines. There are 66,000 chemical and hazardous materials plants. There are 1,800 Federal reservoirs. There are 9,300 power plants, including 104 nuclear, in our country.

And then there are all sorts of high-target, high-risk symbols of our Nation. We are speaking from one even as I talk now: the Capitol. We have the White House, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, the St. Louis Arch, the Golden Gate Bridge, and on and on and on, including some 463 skyscrapers in our land.

I mention those facts, Mr. Chairman, to highlight the enormous challenge that we face as we begin to tackle our homeland security needs. Protecting American citizens from harm is the first and foremost duty of the Federal Government, and this awesome task largely falls upon the shoulders of the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill, Mr. Chairman, provides $29.4 billion for the Department. That is an increase of just over $1 billion above what we were asked by the President, and $535 million more than the current-year levels.

The bill recognizes that while the Department of Homeland Security has the lead in developing our national Homeland Security strategy, implementation of that strategy requires the active participation of State and local governments and the private sector.

When it comes down to it, homeland security, Mr. Chairman, is essentially hometown security; and it requires the active engagement of all Americans and all branches of government.

The bill before us today recognizes the role each stakeholder must play in this big mission. It funds not only the Department's first full year of operations, but also anticipated efforts of State and local governments and the private sector.

As we debate this bill today, I urge my colleagues to remember everything that has been accomplished since September 11. While some might suggest that we are not doing enough, I would say we are making tremendous progress in our war on terror. The glass is not half empty; it is half full.

Since September 11, we have provided $75.8 billion for homeland security funding across the entire government. For these 22 agencies that now make up the new Department of Homeland Security, we have provided $43.9 billion through fiscal year 2003; and in this bill, we add an additional $29.4 billion, bringing the total provided to the Department to $73.3 billion for fiscal years 2002 through 2004.

Protecting the Nation's borders is our first line of defense against terrorism. We include in the bill a total of $9 billion for border protection and related activities. That is an increase of $400 million over the current enacted levels, including $2 billion for the U.S.

Coast Guard homeland security activities. This bill makes innovative technology and capital investments a priority, recognizing that our borders will only be secure when we use a combination of people and technology.

Since September 11, 5,400 inspectors, special agents, and Border Patrol agents have been added to our borders, increasing coverage at ports by 25 percent. An additional 4,100 Coast Guard personnel have been hired to protect our ports and our waterways, increasing the intensity and number of inspections at ports of entry. We will continue to inspect 100 percent of all high-threat cargo and high-threat vessels coming into our waters.

We include $388 million for port security grants. The $100 million included in this bill is another down payment to secure critical port facilities, bringing the total funding since 9-11 to $488 million.

Since September 11, we have provided $263 million for technology, including radiation detectors for our ports and nonintrusive inspection technologies for cargo screening. These technologies have been deployed at our busiest land and sea ports, including Miami, Los Angeles, and Newark; and in this bill we add another $129 million for those technologies, bringing the total since 9-11 to $392 million.

We provide $60 million for the Customs Container Security Initiative, fully funding that effort since its inception. We include $62 million for that program, bringing the total funding to $122 million to support the participation of nearly all of the 20 foreign megaports from which we receive practically all of our cargo. This initiative targets high- threat cargo before it comes into our ports.

We also place in the bill a high priority on funding our State and local first responders. I believe it is essential that our State and local governments have the resources to address the needs of our hometowns. We include $4.4 billion for our first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency response personnel. And since September 11, Mr. Chairman, I want all of my colleagues to hear this: since September 11, the Congress has appropriated $20.8 billion in assistance to our State and local governments for terrorism prevention and preparedness.

That, Mr. Chairman, is an increase of 1,000 percent before 9/11. Despite that significant investment, there are concerns about how and when this money gets to both State and local organizations. I agree in some instances it is taking too long for those funds to get there and the complex process is complicated and cumbersome. We tried to address that in this bill. I am optimistic that this issue will be addressed as part of the final bill that is sent to the President for his signature.

Enhancing transportation security is a continuing concern. Since 9/11 we have provided a total of $10.38 billion for passenger safety through the Transportation Security Administration. Passenger screening, baggage screening, cargo screening, an additional $5.172 billion is included in this bill. Since September 11, $1.5 billion has been spent on explosive and trace detection systems, including the development, procurement and installation in our airports. We include in this bill an additional $335 million for the purchase and installation of these systems, as well as $50 million for air cargo safety and $40 million for research on next generation technologies at our airports.

Science and technology are critical to improving security, increasing efficiency and reducing costs. We include $900 million for science and technology, including $60 million, Mr. Chairman, to design develop and test any missile devices for our commercial aircraft. Other funds are targeted at research, development and rapid deployment of innovative technologies that our universities and other public and private organizations are already developing.

Lastly, the bill includes $5.6 billion over 10 years to encourage commercial development and production of medical countermeasures against bioterrorism, the so-called BioShield program. Funding in fiscal year 2004 is limited to $890 million. These funds will remove the barriers to develop next generation treatment for potential bioterror agents and will encourage the private sector to conduct the necessary research to counter bioterror threats.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is the first Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill ever considered by these bodies. I believe it presents a well-balanced approach to tackling the job ahead. It invests in people. We invest in technology. We invest in partnerships. It funds efforts to assess our vulnerabilities and capitalize on our assets.

A lot of people would want us to spend tons and tons of more money, and believe me, if we thought it was useful to do so we would have no compunction against doing that. But there has got to be somewhere where we sensibly allocate our funds to our vulnerabilities and spend those dollars, but we should not spend money just for throwing it away.

I believe this bill is responsible, and I urge my colleagues to support this historic measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very valuable member of our subcommittee, who has contributed much to this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very distinguished and very helpful member of our subcommittee who contributed greatly to this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), who has been a member of the subcommittee who has been extremely helpful to us in this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and gentlewoman for this colloquy and applaud the fight they have led for New York, which is one of the reasons we enacted a total of $800 million for high-threat, high-density urban areas in fiscal year 2003.

Of that $800 million, New York received $186 million to assist first responders with the increased security costs associated with the war in Iraq and Operation Liberty Shield. I am aware of the concerns the formula has generated. I assure my colleagues I appreciate the degree to which New York is a target and the expenses New York faces. I am also aware of those rural areas that rely on the basic formula grants to fulfill their first responder requirements. I believe any reform to the formula must ensure that these rural areas are not abandoned. I will work closely with the gentlewoman and the gentleman as the bill progresses to conference on these and other matters.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Only in a general sense. The presence of high-risk infrastructure, the urban intensity of the region, we leave it to the discretion of the Secretary, as I think we should, rather than some formula. As the gentleman knows, we have been working together.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman is correct, but I think in due course of time, perhaps before the bill finally reaches the President, we will have found out more.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment by the gentleman who has been working very

hard on the issue. Originally, this program permitted those certified as low-risk travelers to cross the Mexican border on an expedited basis for 1 year. However, in order to accommodate the unexpected increases in enrollment in that program following 9-11, Customs and Border Protection in February 2003 extended the enrollment period to 2 years. That had the effect of benefiting both participants in the program and the government by reducing paperwork and made the annual enrollment fee a biennial fee. But current enrollees had their eligibility automatically extended for 2 years from the date of their last enrollment and the applications backlog that was being blamed for increased waits at the border has been greatly reduced. So I do not think the problem is as bad as it perhaps was at the outset.

Number two, we took $333 million in the 2003 wartime supplemental and gave that to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. We have not received their spend plans on how they intend to use those funds. The Department, however, could, I would remind the gentleman, could use a portion of the supplemental to support the SENTRI expansion. They do have some discretion.

Number three, and the gentleman alluded to this. We have already cut the funds for the Department's administration by 25 percent. The moneys he would take with this amendment would come out of administration. We have already cut them past the bone almost. Additional reductions could reduce the basic departmental administration programs and impair their ability to fulfill management of the entire agency.

For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment and would urge Members to reject it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman that just spoke made some comments that I feel must be responded to. It is not really relevant to this amendment, but I will try to make it so, and that is whether or not we are providing enough funding for our State and local responders. I hear it every day. We hear it every day. Most people are uninformed or misinformed about how much money is going out there. In this bill we provide over $4 billion, and added to the moneys that we put in the 2002 bill and the 2003 bill, we will have appropriated some $20.8 billion just for State and local first responders. The money is going out in different sorts of grants. There are eight or 10 different sorts of grants, one of which goes to the high-threat urban areas such as New York, Washington, L.A., other places, and those go out at the discretion and in the decision of the Secretary.

Last year, the current year 2003, we provided $800 million for just the high-threat/high-density urban areas. The administration in the 2004 request did not request any funds in that account. We put $500 million back in that account, and that is in the bill as we speak. However, in the other grant accounts we have increased the grants for State and local first responders by over $1 billion. We do not hear that talked about, but it is there. There is over $1 billion more in those grant programs this year and next year than this year, $203 million above what we gave this year and $1 billion over what the President requested.

So I want to ask where is the beef? Where is the beef?

Those moneys are going out under competitive and discretionary grant programs to our States. Under this bill our States are required by law to give that money, 80 percent of it, to the locals within 60 days. The States have got to set up their own machinery for processing these applications. They have not done that yet. New York's application was almost tardy. We are just now getting the applications. And yet then we are saying you are not giving us the money. The money is there when you qualify and will be there during this year, but we have increased the amounts of money that go to State and local first responders $203 million above what they have now and $1 billion more than was requested by the President.

If the administration wants to submit a change in their budget request that changes these grants in some fashion, I am sure they will send us the supplement to their budget and we will give it due consideration. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure that Members understand the State and local first responder grant moneys are there more than last year, $1 billion more than the President requested. If the States will get their committees together and do their paperwork and apply for these moneys, they will be there, and if there are any delays in the pipeline, it is mainly because the States and localities have not applied for the money.

So Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I certainly will.

I thank the gentleman for his advocacy on behalf of the Coast Guard, and he has been a champion at that for his entire career in the Congress.

While I cannot support his amendment, I do recognize the need to provide additional funding for Deepwater and for the administrative costs associated with the review and approval of the congressionally mandated facility and vessels security plans. I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from New Jersey to ensure adequate resources are made for these priorities in fiscal 2004.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for his very thoughtful comments and agree that the needs of older Americans and those with special needs should be addressed. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this important issue.

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

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, very reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment. The gentleman is a good Member, and he has expressed heartfelt thoughts here. And, goodness knows, I have expressed very serious and long-standing reservations about the number of screeners that TSA has deployed in airports throughout the country. But in the bill before us we already reduce the number of screeners by another 4,600 in fiscal 2004, and that is on top of the 6,000 screeners that will be laid off between now and September of this year. That would be a reduction from current levels, roughly, of some 10,600 less than we have now.

In the 2002 bill, when it was in Transportation, we capped the number of screeners at 45,000. This cut the gentleman would make would take us well below that cap. This further reduction of $20 million from the screener fund would require them to lay off another 500 to 1,000 screeners on top of what I just mentioned. That would take us well below the 45,000 level that we had set now for the 2 or 3 years in the Congress as the maximum level at TSA.

The monies the gentleman would take from TSA he would give to the first responders, and heavens knows we want to give them all we can, but in this bill, as the gentleman mentioned, we are already $1 billion for first responders above what the President requested, and some $200 million plus above what the current level of spending for first responders is. So I just think that it would be unwise to adopt this amendment, as much as I sympathize with the gentleman's philosophy in offering it.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would rather that we let the TSA absorb these cuts that we already have in place, which will cut 10,600 screeners by the end of 2004. Let us do that before we take further steps. We can assess it at that time. If we still have a problem, I would be supportive of the gentleman's amendment. But for the moment, I think we have done just about enough.

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

Mr. Chairman, I could not let the gentleman's statement go unanswered. We cannot talk in this forum about all that we are doing at our ports in searching container freight and other freight. I would be happy to talk to any Member privately about it, but we cannot talk about all that we are doing in a public forum because it is sensitive information.

However, the Customs and Border Protection Agency tells me that they are inspecting 100 percent of all high-risk cargo based on collecting advanced information such as manifests, intelligence, and targeting systems. I have had the experience of going to some of those ports myself and watching the operation. Watching as we use the equipment on these containers that we do search and then the ones that we physically search.

The 2003 spending bill had monies in it for a thing called the Container Security Initiative, essentially operating at about 20 megaports and several smaller ports all over the world. The idea is to push the perimeter of defense off of our shores. We all know if a bad container gets to us, it is too late. If you catch it only when it comes to your port, it is too late. So we have moved offshore to 20 megaports now, places like Rotterdam, Singapore, and the like, and inspecting and searching and securing containers before they ever sail for America.

Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $62 million to expand that to 30 megaports around the world and especially those in very sensitive parts of the world.

Now we already have in place $165 million from the wartime supplemental that we passed for additional inspectors, agents, technology and $129 million for additional inspection technology in this bill. Those monies will be used to push the border out to these 30 foreign seaports through the Container Security Initiative, but there is also $12 million for government-private partnerships to tighten security in private facilities and $3 million to continue what is called the Operation Safe Commerce to make smart containers and our supply chain even more secure.

I want Members to know that we are focusing exactly on what the gentleman has talked about, and that is container freight. There are more than 17 million containers a year, there is 17 million a year; 7 million comes by sea, 12 million by land across our borders with Mexico and Canada. It is a huge problem to deal with.

However, if we stop and search physically every single container regardless of whether or not it looks to be suspicious for some reason, we would absolutely shut down commerce in the world. So much of our commerce depends on the container freight business. I think we are going about it the sensible way. I am convinced after having visited several ports, spending a lot of time with the folks that are doing this, looking at the machinery and the results and how they go about doing it, that we are doing as good as we can in the span of time that we have had. Obviously it is going to get better. We are going to keep pushing at it. That is the reason we have loaded this bill down with money for that very purpose. I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to us so we can discuss it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

I am compelled again to talk about New York. All of us here are sympathetic, understanding, we want to help; but I feel compelled to lay out some facts that have not been laid out here. The fiscal year 2003 bill, we gave $800 million in that bill for the high-threat, high- density urban area grants and the discretion of the Secretary. $100 million of that was in the omnibus; $700 million was in the supplemental. However, that money has not been spent. There is $800 million laying there. Why? Because the grant application deadline for that first $100 million just ended on June 16, a couple of weeks ago, and has not been processed. The application deadline for the $700 million that was in the supplemental is not up until July 7. We have not processed the applications yet. Those moneys will be going out there, to New York and the other cities.

In addition to that, what I am saying is, I guess, have a little patience. Number two, when the President's request

came up to us for fiscal year 2004, there was no request for high threat, high-density urban grant moneys. Zero. The subcommittee worked on it, and we put in $500 million. Now people call that a cut. Boy, that is a strange use of the word. We increased it $500 million. If the Secretary thinks we ought to change that, then he needs to send us a budget supplemental and amend his request and we will consider it.

However, all of the other grant programs, and there are six or seven of them, there are basic formula grants, there are law enforcement terrorism prevention grants, there are critical infrastructure grants, there are firefighter assistance grants, there are emergency management performance grants, there are emergency operations centers grants, all of which New York is eligible to apply for. We increased those funds over what the President wanted us to by $1 billion. So that now there is $4.04 billion available in those grant programs immediately. I would guess just by the odds and by the importance of New York that when you apply for those grants with the increased numbers there, all of these grants, you are probably going to wind up with more money than you got this year. But, please, have patience and understand that the rest of the country is interested in this as well. We want to help you, but I ask for your patience and understanding.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

That is correct.

Five hundred million.

It goes to the so-called high-threat/high- density urban areas of the country, and I think they are talking probably of 20 cities or less, in the complete discretion of the Secretary.

That is correct.

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

That is correct.

I hear the same thing every day.

That is the way I understand the amendment. It would take $200 million away from all the States in order to beef up this cap from $500 million to $700 million just for the high-density/ high-urban area grants.

The gentleman is correct. In addition to that, as we have previously said, the subcommittee increased the amount of money for all of the grant programs of which there are seven, for firefighter grants and for infrastructure grants, emergency management grants, formula grants to States and cities and the like. All those grant programs, we increased by $1 billion above what the President wanted and $203 million more than the 2003 levels. So all of the States that have these high-density urban areas that would be eligible for the high-density grants will also be eligible for very larger pots of money that everyone else is trying to share with, and yet this amendment would take from that moneys and put it into the high-density/high-urban areas. We have gone through this in our subcommittee and in our full committee and we have labored with it and wrestled with it with the gentleman and in a bipartisan fashion from big cities and small, big States and small, and this was the best we could do. We think it is a fair way to do it. And to take the moneys from one area now and give it to another would open us up to an ugliness that I do not think we need to see in this battle.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me return the thanks. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been our leader in the Congress for first responders, not just firefighters, but first responders in general; and he brings an expertise to this job not just from an educational point of view, but he is back there with them. So I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on these issues and for bringing this very timely subject to our attention.

Considering the devastation that wildfires cause to our Nation each year, I look forward to working with the gentleman during conference so that we can address this important matter.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. TSA currently screens cargo based on the Known Shipper Program and identifies potentially troublesome cargo by additional screening. By law, they are required to ensure adequate cargo security measures, but not 100 percent screening of air cargo. In essence, this amendment would stop airlines from loading cargo onto passenger aircraft until TSA can screen or inspect each individual piece.

Now, in the bill, we already provide $50 million for the security of air cargo. This funding will do the following: It will develop an air cargo security program for domestic and foreign air cargo carriers. It will promote the development and implementation of a risk-based freight screening system that will identify pieces of cargo that require closer scrutiny and participation in the Known Shipper Program, including linkages with other databases to verify shipper information that is provided. We provide for development of state-of-the-art detection technologies that will screen cargo and also research and test devices that exist now and procedures to be applied to air cargo.

Right now, Mr. Chairman, it is not humanly possible to inspect every piece of cargo that goes onto the aircraft. TSA does not have the staff or technologies in place to do that. For example, airport screeners screen passengers and baggage using explosive detection and trace machines. These machines are not certified to screen cargo, nor can they handle the large pallets that cargo is typically shipped in. In these cases, the pallets would need to be broken apart and screened by hand. That is very time-consuming and labor intensive.

In addition, in many cases cargo is sorted and prepared onto pallets at airport warehouses nowhere near the airports; and to implement this amendment, the cargo would need to be screened at these off-site locations. According to an analysis prepared by Battelle just prior to 9-11, 100 percent screening of all cargo on passenger carriers would require at least $500 million in the first year alone. That includes procurement of equipment, installation, training, and staffing. It would require 7,800 employees, which would include 6,600 screeners and 1,100 supervisors. If we adopt this amendment, TSA would need to hire a substantial number of new staff to inspect cargo and install new technologies at all of these warehouses.

Even if there was sufficient funding in the bill, which there is not, it is not logistically possible to have all of these screeners and technologies in place by the beginning of the fiscal year. TSA is currently in compliance with the Transportation Security Act, which requires TSA to provide adequate security measures for air cargo. The law does not require every piece to be screened or inspected, as this amendment would. We do not require every piece of cargo that goes onto a ship be screened when it is loaded onto a ship or before it is off- loaded. Instead, DHS targets what cargo pieces need to be more closely inspected based on intelligence and innovations such as the advanced manifests that we now require.

By adopting this amendment, TSA would have to refuse to allow airlines to transport any cargo until all of it can be screened, and I would point out that the money-strapped airlines would be sorely tried trying to do this, and it would greatly impact their bottom line.

Currently, the only cargo airlines can ship on passenger planes is from a known shipper. They cannot, for example, ship any mail above 16 ounces because the shippers may not be known.

So, Mr. Chairman, I understand the obvious meaning of the amendment. I appreciate the concern the gentleman has. We have tried to address that in the bill with $50 million to begin to address the problem. To adopt this kind of a drop-dead provision would mean chaos in the airlines. It would not substantially increase the security that is now ongoing in loading cargo onto planes. The Known Shipper Program is reliable. It is working, and while we spend the $50 million this coming year to begin to try to get the machines and technology in place to be able to screen, as we do, container freight in most cases, this money should be sufficient for that purpose. So I would urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

We have provisions in this bill that requires that the State to whom we give the money must send the money on to the localities within 30 days, and then 80 percent of the monies that we give to those States must be passed on to local units of government within 60 days. Those are provisions in our bill that we added in an attempt to force the money quickly to the community.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Does the gentlewoman have a statement she would care to make in regard to the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 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. The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment imposes additional duties and, therefore, violates the rule.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

I do, Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program, therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states, in pertinent part, an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.

Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I respectfully ask for a ruling.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we wrap up debate on this bill, this historic bill, the very

first appropriations bill that this Congress has taken up to fund the new Department of Homeland Security, truly a historic day, I want to say just briefly how much I appreciate all of the help that the members of the subcommittee gave to us as we crafted this bill in a bipartisan way, and for all of the Members who have conducted the debate today, I think, in a very high-minded way.

I want to especially thank my colleague, my ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), who has been of immense help as we constructed the bill, and all the members of the subcommittee and of the full committee.

I want to especially single out the vice chairman of the subcommittee, the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who was helpful in the drafting of this bill, but also, most importantly, had the courage back in the wintertime to have the Subcommittee on Homeland Security created in the full committee. It was courageous. The other body followed suit. Otherwise, this Department would be appropriated by seven or eight different subcommittees on the House and Senate side. So I want to thank Chairman Young for doing a great job and having the courage to be a leader.

And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the very excellent staff that we have had the good fortune to work with for only 3\1/2\ months since this subcommittee has existed. Just a short time, but this staff pulled together a bill from whole cloth and nurtured it through the process, and we owe a lot to this excellent staff on both sides of the aisle who put this very first bill together.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to thank these people for doing a great job.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations have until midnight Monday, June 23, 2003, to file a privileged report making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and in support of the base bill before us. The bill before us effectively achieves its purpose, to prevent people from using credit on illegal gambling activities, particularly offshore Internet sites.

But if this amendment should be adopted, we might as well just call this bill the ``Horse Racing Prohibition Act'' because it will literally kill that entire industry. The intent of the amendment is not to prevent illegal activity, rather it is intended to make current legal activities illegal.

If the language regarding State license domestic wagering were eliminated or changed, this legislation would not simply prohibit credit in connection with Internet gambling, it would restrict the day- to-day wagering activities of millions of horse racing fans by limiting financial clearing transactions with domestic wagering facilities. As a result, this would severely curtail simulcast wagering and personal account wagering on any horse race.

Not surprisingly, over 80 percent of the amount bet on horse racing is wagered at locations other than where the race is run. The result of this amendment, should it pass, would be catastrophic to the $34 billion racing/horse breeding industry, especially to the States that rely on it for tax revenue and the 500,000 full-time jobs it supports.

In Kentucky alone, there are 460 thoroughbred farms, 150,000 horses, 8 tracks and 52,000 jobs which add $3.4 billion directly to the State's economy. On top of this, the U.S. horse racing industry is already one of the most highly regulated industries in the country, governed by both Federal and State laws.

States like Kentucky have highly sophisticated systems in place to ensure that each transaction is made in accordance with the law. Because of this State regulation, the integrity of gaming site operators, the identity of the participants, consumer fraud and money laundering are not at issue.

It is ironic that this Congress would stand here today and attempt to trample on the rights of States to regulate

their own businesses. The adoption of this amendment would be the triple crown of injustices. It would put hardworking folks out of work, it would take away much-needed revenue from the States, and it would deprive honest folks the fun of putting a couple of bucks down on their favorite horse to win, place, or show. I ask Members to reject the Sensenbrenner amendment and support the bill as written.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of my friend and eastern Kentucky native Charlie Parker, president and CEO of Buckhorn Children's Foundation. Charlie is retiring after 21 years of service to the children and families of Kentucky. It is only fitting to take this opportunity to recognize all that he has accomplished.

Buckhorn Children's Foundation's mission is to alleviate the suffering of children and families and bring hope to otherwise hopeless lives in Appalachia. Through a variety of programs, Buckhorn has helped thousands learn about themselves, feel pride in who they are, and become successes in life. Although they actively seek out the most troubled of our youth, Buckhorn can boast of an over 70 percent success rate, which is far above the national average.

Coming on board in 1982, Charlie took over Buckhorn's one residential campus with a budget of $650,000. Under his vision and leadership, that one residential campus has grown to three with a budget of $18 million. Its reach has extended beyond the hills of Eastern Kentucky into more urban areas. Without question, this would never have been accomplished were it not for the tireless efforts of Charlie.

While we have taken much time recently to recognize our heroes that have defended our freedom abroad, we must also recognize our heroes at home. I know that the many young people that Charlie has positively affected consider him a hero, as do I. Thank you, Charlie, for giving young people one of the greatest gifts of all--a future.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am joined by Congressman Zach Wamp in reintroducing legislation to protect Fern Lake, an important part of our shared scenic heritage. Senator Mitch McConnell will be introducing identical legislation in the U.S. Senate today.

This legislation will allow the National Park Service to purchase Fern Lake and incorporate these lands into the Cumberland Gap National Historic Park boundary. Further, this legislation will secure a clean and reliable water source for the city of Middlesboro, Kentucky.

This bill authorizes the purchase of land now neighboring the Gap boundary and the 150-acre lake. The measure would also allow the Park Service to acquire another 4,500 acres of adjoining watershed from willing sellers if funds become available. By buying this property, we will protect this important national passageway for generations and address the resource needs of our local communities today.

This legislation began with a petition, delivered to me by Ben Hickman, the mayor of Middlesboro. From there, we sat down with the National Park Service and brought them together with local officials to create this win-win opportunity for the park and the entire region both in Kentucky and Tennessee.

This important acquisition fits into our efforts to create jobs, protect our environmental resources, and promote economic development by enhancing our potential for tourism. I am proud to have the support of Congressman Wamp and look forward to its passage at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, all around great Kentuckian, and someone I am proud to call a friend, Karen Engle. As Executive Director of the PRIDE program, Karen has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of people throughout southern and eastern Kentucky. I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude for her many contributions.

Born and raised in Pike County, Kentucky, Karen has spent much of her life working to make her region a better place. I first had the opportunity to get to know Karen when she joined my congressional staff in 1994. From the very beginning, it was clear that she was bright, motivated, and a natural born leader. For almost five years, she served as a Project Manager and Field Representative in my Pikeville District office. Her knowledge of the region and its people, along with her professionalism and commitment to service, made her a most valuable part of my team.

In 1999, 1 asked Karen to put her insight and leadership skills to work by taking the helm of the PRIDE program. Under Karen's leadership, this federal, state, and local partnership has made significant strides in cleaning up our region's rivers and streams, helping our counties address sewage and trash problems, and educating our children about the importance of a clean environment. Since the program's creation in 1997, more than 74,500 PRIDE volunteers have worked over 225,000 hours cleaning up 286 streams, 1,294 illegal dumps, and 3,000 roadways. Additionally, PRIDE has eliminated 20,560 straight pipes and failing septic systems that have long polluted our region's waterways. Thanks to Karen's unwavering commitment, the PRIDE program has soared to amazing heights and is going strong. There is no doubt that the people of Kentucky will continue to benefit from her contributions for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank my friend Karen Engle for the time, energy, and devotion she has put into the lives of others. I am especially grateful for her unwavering commitment to the PRIDE program and the people of southern and eastern Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations who just spoke, for having the foresight and vision and leadership to have taken on this very difficult chore of reorganizing the House to deal with homeland security. It was his leadership that created this new subcommittee that brought together authorities from other subcommittees into one place, and it is the right thing to do and he took the leadership to make it happen; and the other body then followed suit, followed the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. We are fortunate to have him in the position that he is in.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this bill has plenty of money for homeland security. Could we spend more money? Yes, of course, we could. Are there fire departments and police departments and EMT departments out there that could use more money? Absolutely. Is there a role for the Federal Government in helping them meet their expenses? Yes. What is that role? Our role is to assist them to train and to have equipment and the like to help protect the Nation from threats. But of course, their main responsibility is to protect their hometown and their home State and, of course, we cannot and should not pay their entire budget.

Yet some would have us do that. Some would have us turn the homeland security funding mechanisms into another revenue sharing, so that States and localities could get huge sums of money without any real policy connection to a Federal role, and we must guard against that.

But in this bill, Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of money for homeland security. There is plenty of money backed

up in previous years that has not yet been spent that localities can have access to. But in this bill, there is $2.2 billion that is destined for our States and localities when they apply for it, for monies to go to their first responders; $2.2 billion to different grant programs that they can apply to the Secretary for, and those monies will be granted to the States and localities; and 80 percent of the money has to go to the local departments and not be funneled off by the States. So we think it is a substantial sum of money that will satisfy the need for the moment. We may see the need in short order for something else, but for the moment we think this is sufficient.

There is also $1.5 billion for the Secretary to use on the Federal level for such things as cargo and portal radiation monitors. These are in our Nation's seaports and our land ports to protect us from cargo containers that might contain nuclear materials or biological or chemical weapons. There is $193 million for just that. There is $100 million for additional staffing along the northern border with our neighbors in Canada. There is $35 million more for container security initiatives so that we can keep track of, find and keep track of container cargo that might be damaging. There is $235 million in this bill to help our local airports modify their premises to accommodate these huge x-ray machines that are checking our baggage. There is $85 million to help reimburse our local law enforcement and State law enforcement officers and National Guardsmen who have been providing increased security at the airports and other critical transportation sites. Most of this money is going to our localities, as it should. There is $40 million for the Transportation Security Administration's port security efforts, and there is $30 million for nonaviation surface transportation security initiatives. There is $185 million for the Immigration Service for overtime, and air and marine interdiction and detention and removal of people who should not be here.

Now, do the States and localities need more? Well, of course their budgets are tight. But I would point out to my colleagues that we still have $291 million of 2002 monies still available. There is $291 million yet unspent that we provided in fiscal year 02 that the States and localities have not even applied for. There is $566 million that we provided for State and local grants in the 03 omnibus bill. All of those monies are yet unspent. In the current supplemental, there is $2.2 billion that is destined for our localities, and in the 04 fiscal year that we are holding hearings on right now, and that bill will be passed sometime hopefully this summer, there is another several hundreds of millions of dollars.

All told, that is a combined total of $19 billion-plus over the 02-04 period, monies that are destined for localities, most of which has not even been applied for. So there is plenty of money in the pipeline for our States and localities. Sure, we would like to have more money perhaps one of these days, but for the moment we have plenty of money for our States and localities to apply for if they wish.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The committee, as I said before in general debate, provided $3.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security activities related to the war effort. This amendment would add another substantial amount of money to that figure, which at this moment in time is not necessary.

This bill, this supplemental bill we are talking about is only for a 3-month period of time. We will have plenty of time after that to look to the future, but for this 3-month window of time, I say to the Members, this money is adequate. Could we spend more? Of course, we can shovel money out the door, but we have tried to be reasonable and somewhat restrained in what we throw out the window here at this point in time. This is a 3-month expenditure we are talking about.

Taking some of the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) specifics, for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, this is money for our local responders. We provide $2.2 billion. His amendment would add another 300, but I would point out to the Members that there is already almost $1 billion of money presently allocated that is unspent, laying there waiting for our communities to ask for that money.

And, number two, the 2004 budget request adds another $3.6 billion that likely will be appropriated and will be available beginning this October 1.

Now, the Coast Guard: We provide $630 million. His amendment would add $100 million more to hire 2,000 more people. We cannot bring 2,000 people on board that fast. The 2004 budget request includes funds for hiring new people and, undoubtedly, we will approve that. But for this 3-month period of time, this is unrealistic.

Now, for the Transportation Security Administration, we provide $390 million. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would add $250 million for port security grants. But the Coast Guard has $40 million in this supplemental to complete the port vulnerability assessments. We do not know what the ports need until we assess them, and that is what the Coast Guard is doing just this minute. They are going to come back and tell us what we will need for fiscal 2004 and we will provide it for them. They are going to tell us what we will need for the next 10 years. And the estimated cost over 10 years is $4.4 billion to harden the ports, and we will do that over the period of time. We cannot do it all at once.

The amendment provides another $150 million for firefighter assistance grants for which there was no request. We have already provided $1.1 billion in fiscal 2002 and 2003. And as I said, most of that money has not yet been passed out to the communities.

Mr. Chairman, I am just saying to my colleagues that there is plenty of money in the first responder pipeline for this 3-month period of time about which this bill addresses itself.

The amendment would provide $350 million for interoperable communications equipment between first responders. There was no request for that money. There is a need for interoperability, no doubt about it, but we have first got to develop regional and national standards before we spend zillions of dollars trying to communicate with each other. This has to be done on a regional basis. And the regionalization of that system is in the works even as we speak, but not quite yet ready.

The committee, I think, has adequately funded homeland security activities that were war related for this 3-month period of time. There is only 5 months left in the fiscal year to spend additional monies. There is plenty of money in the pipeline for our first responders. There is plenty of money in the bill for port security, including extending our port assessment to the 20 megaports in the other parts of the world from which we receive most of our shipments.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let us just look at it. The fiscal 2002 grants, the money we appropriated a year and a half ago, $495 million for grants for our local communities to apply for, $291 million of that money is still lying there unspent. Nearly 60 percent of the fiscal 2002 monies are still available to communities, and the filing deadline is still available. It has been available since 2002, and the money is not applied for. What does the gentleman say about that?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, there is $291 million available for first responders from fiscal 2002. Why do you not apply for it?

Well, let us spend what we have already. If we need more, we will get it.

Mr. Chairman, could we have the amendment read for us, please?

Mr. Chairman, we have not had a chance to discuss this amendment with the gentlewoman, and I wonder if we might be able to delay the consideration of it for a few minutes while we do that. I do not want her to lose her opportunity to offer it, in case our conversation is fruitless.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be delayed until after whatever is next on the agenda, and that the right of the gentlewoman to offer the amendment would be preserved.

Mr. Chairman, I am told this is the last amendment in this title, other than this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I would ask the gentlewoman a question. Should this amendment be accepted, would the other amendments, the five other amendments the gentlewoman has tendered, be withdrawn?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was prepared to accept the amendment, but if we are not going to save any time by it, I do not see any point in accepting it. So I have no choice but to oppose it.

Well, I do not see any point in moving further on this. I was prepared to accept this one on condition that the gentlewoman would just simply withdraw the others. They are subject to a point of order anyway, and we could save a lot of time in that fashion. But if the gentlewoman is unwilling to do that, then I have no choice but to oppose this amendment and all of the others.

If the gentlewoman would like to discuss the other five in a 5-minute period, I would have no problem with that.

So my understanding is if we accept this amendment, the gentlewoman would spend 5 minutes talking about all five of the others?

Then I have no problem.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentlewoman would speak 5 minutes for all of the five all at once, 5 minutes total?

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I will ask that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, be yielded to.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Florida will continue to yield, I would respond that the gentleman is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated civil servant and all around great American, Mr. Ron Keeney. After 37 years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Huntington, WV, he is retiring and embarking on a new stage of life. I want to express my deepest gratitude for his many contributions.

Ron Keeney has led a distinguished career and played a critical role in improving the lives and living conditions of thousands of people in my home district in Southern and Eastern Kentucky. Ron has been instrumental in getting a number of important flood control projects off the ground in my region and he shares my belief that we must carefully balance economic development with the needs of our rich natural environment. Through his efforts, the Huntington District has become an integral component of our region's PRIDE program, which is helping clean up our waterways and streams. I want to thank Ron for sharing my vision of how federal-local partnerships can bridge gaps, streamline the process, and make real contributions to people's daily lives.

Ron is also widely respected within the Army Corp of Engineers. Beyond measure, Ron has improved the Huntington District's programmatic, oversight, planning, and fiscal performance. He has also proven invaluable as the District's key civilian decision-maker witih regard to strategic management of its major civil-works, environmental, and other programs and projects, including work for other Federal agencies.

The list of awards bestowed upon Ron speaks volumes about his job performance, knowledge, and skills. During his career, he has received more than 30 outstanding/exceptional performance ratings. He also received the May 1999, Silver de Fleury Medal, the 1994 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planner of the Year, and the 1994 and 1985 LRD Planner of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank Ron Keeney for the time and effort he has put into the lives of others. Although his time with the Corps of Engineers is drawing to a close, I know the people of the Huntington District will continue to benefit from his contributions for many years to come. I want to wish him and his family all the best for this next stage of life.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to commend the staff of the Somerset Social Security Office for their strong, effective, and compassionate service to the people of Kentucky.

Social Security plays an important role in the lives of more Americans than any other federal program. Whether providing a Social Security number for a newborn baby, mailing a check to a retired worker, or helping a disabled individual receive benefits, the Social Security Administration touches the lives of just about everyone.

The field office in my hometown of Somerset, Kentucky, is a shining example for this massive agency. Under the leadership of W.D. Dalton, the staff in Somerset consistently goes beyond the call of duty to provide valuable benefits to the people of Kentucky. Because of their unwavering commitment to helping others, the Social Security Administration recognized the Somerset Office as the Best Level II Field Office in the Atlanta Region for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank the staff at the Somerset Social Security Office for their hard work and dedication to serving the people of Kentucky. These fine Americans are an inspiration to us all, and I salute them for their commitment to helping others.

Mr Speaker, I rise today to commend the staff of the Middlesboro Social Security Office for their strong, effective, and compassionate service to the people of Kentucky.

Social Security plays an important role in the lives of more Americans than any other federal program. Whether providing a Social Security number for a newborn baby, mailing a check to a retired worker, or helping a disabled individual receive benefits, the Social Security Administration touches the lives of just about everyone.

The field office in Middlesboro, Kentucky, is a shining example for this massive agency. Under the leadership of Steve Schneider, the staff in Middlesboro consistently goes beyond

the call of duty to provide valuable benefits to the people of Kentucky. Because of their unwavering commitment to helping others, the Social Security Administration recognized the Middlesboro Office as the Best Level II Field Office in the Atlanta Region for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank the staff at the Middlesboro Social Security Office for their hard work and dedication to serving the people of Kentucky. These fine Americans are an inspiration to us all, and I salute them for their commitment to helping others.

Mr. Speaker, a most joyous occasion has taken place for me that I want to share with you and my friends.

On December 23, 2002, my oldest son and his wife became the parents of my first grandson. Brendan Anthony Rogers became the only Rogers boy to be born in my parents' family and therefore the bearer of the name into the future. Brendan's parents, Anthony and Mindy, live in my hometown, Somerst, Kentucky.

Brendan's grandmother, my first wife, Shirley, passed away in 1995. She would be very proud, as am I, of this handsome, lively little guy.

Mr. Speaker, in the midst of the weighty issues with which we are faced in this body, my announcement of this bundle of joy is indeed a respite. However, for me, Brendan's arrival is, in itself, a weighty matter because he brings to me a sense of immortality, and I know all my colleagues can identify with that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask of you and all our colleagues, that you join me in wishing to Brendan Anthony Rogers, as he embarks on life, Godspeed!