Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - June 17, 2004)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and friend from Kentucky for yielding me this time, and commends him and all for crafting an overall good bill.
It was brought up earlier how in this comprehensive bill there is time for honest disagreement, and I think later on this evening we will try to have a good conversation about that honest disagreement, and it relates to essentially how funding goes to what we will call high-threat areas as opposed to minimal guarantees for States and funding that some of us believe could be better spent in areas that can use it more and more effectively, like New York City.
By way of example, if we were to talk about enhancing our national security, and some Member suggested putting an aircraft carrier in the Great Salt Lake, somebody would probably think that is a little ludicrous, and we would say let us put the money where it is needed most.
While we are here trying to advocate more funding, bluntly for places like New York City, because that is where the funding is needed the most, Exhibit A for that clearly was September 11, and the Congress and the President and all united to help New York recover, but it still represents the terrorists' number one threat. The Federal intelligence community has confirmed this fact.
I think the President's budget also recognizes the need to prioritize funding in these areas by calling for $1.4 billion in the urban security initiative, $450 million more than the House bill. September 11 is not unique in New York. The first bombing of the Trade Center occurred in 1993. In between there was a conspiracy to destroy the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, the United Nations and the Federal Building in Lower Manhattan, as well as a plot to bomb the subway.
Attacks in high-threat, high-density areas have great national economic impact in those areas as well. A Milken Institute study concluded, "Disaster in New York affects business confidence in every major city," unlike events elsewhere. The study estimates a GDP decline of 1 percent and a loss of 1.6 million jobs nationwide because of the September 11 attacks on New York. For example, the financial service industry lost 96,000 jobs nationwide due to the attacks in New York, home to most the industry's headquarters, but two-thirds of those losses occurred throughout the country.
Our areas require intensive police coverage. New York City has 1,000 police officers dedicated solely to homeland security missions. The police department spent $200 million last year for these efforts. Despite the large sum, the police department alone has identified an additional $261 million in training needs, equipment and supplies directly related to counter-terrorism.
Given the vital needs, we would argue for more funds because that is where it is needed the most. Let me underscore, and this is not to take away from the great work of all people and their considerations, but homeland security, this is one home, not 50 different homes but one, and we are talking about security and we just appreciate a little more funding where it is needed in New York and elsewhere.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the words "notwithstanding any other provision of law" under the heading "State and Local Programs" violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of
Representatives prohibiting legislation on appropriations bills.
This provision would make over $3.4 billion available for State and local grants in a way that could contradict statutes within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and other committees. The reason that we passed those statutes, obviously, is to ensure that money would be spent in a certain way.
In short, this language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House because it changes current law.
I therefore insist on my point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and, as has been stated repeatedly here and warrants repetition, is why this is the right thing, what we know and why this is right.
What we know is clear and obvious. What we know is that a terrorist seeks an area to destroy not just innocent people, but the morale of an entire Nation. And while it may be a couple of years ago, September 11 is alive and well here in this country.
In Staten Island and Brooklyn alone, almost 300 innocent people lost their life, lost their life. The terrorists knew that. They still do. It was not unique. In 1989 they attempted to blow up the Trade Center. They have conspired to blow up the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, and the United Nations as well. It is still real.
What is right is to send the money to where it is needed. If after September 11 we united as we did as a Nation, and we are grateful to the Congress and the President for coming through for New York City and New York State, if after September 11 we decided to go after the terrorists where they were, where the threat was, and Secretary Rumsfeld deployed the 101st Airborne to Switzerland, we would have laughed him out of Washington. Or, if he said, let us put an aircraft carrier in the Great Salt Lake, because we are going to protect the homeland; one home, not 50, one home, we would have laughed him out. If he said, let us get the Air Force deployed and launch a strike against Antarctica, we would have laughed him out.
So this notion that we have to send money everywhere for the sake of sending money everywhere really compromises the second component of what this committee is all about: our homeland, all of us together, and security. Let us not send money somewhere so we can say we cut the check.
The point is that it is not just New York City, it is not just the city residents, and it is not just the residents of New Jersey. It is the residents of Chicago, it is the residents of Los Angeles, it is the residents of Houston, Texas, and it is the millions of people who go to those cities: your families, our friends, our fellow Americans and, yes, people from around the world who come to these cities, New York, for example, who expect a level of security. We want them to visit for a few days and go home peacefully, spending money in the meantime, but let them come and enjoy it.
The fact is clear, I say to my colleagues. The right thing to do is to recognize that the City of New York, on a daily basis, incurs millions of dollars of expense to protect not just the residents of New York City, the people who work there every day and the millions of people who come. We need to reengineer this formula. We need to reengineer and do what is right, not just for the urban areas, but send the money where it is needed the most where the terrorists are looking towards, and they are looking towards New York again. Let us not look back in a year or two as my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) said earlier and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and others have said so eloquently, let us not look back in a few years and say, well, we should have done something better. We have the opportunity tonight to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT