C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a close, personal friend, Steve DiGerlando, on his last day as Chief of Staff in my California office. It is with deep gratitude--and more than a little sadness--that today my staff and I wish Steve farewell. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his twelve outstanding years of dedicated service to my office and to the residents of the 48th district of California. For more than a decade, Steve has been a tireless advocate on behalf of Orange County residents. Since first joining my staff in 1991, Steve has personally handled more than 5,000 cases and he has helped literally thousands of people resolve their problems with Federal agencies. After a brief leave from my office a few years back, Steve returned in 2003 to take the post of Deputy District Director. Soon thereafter he was promoted to California Chief of Staff, where he demonstrated superb leadership and management skills. Steve has been a loyal and capable director, and his expertise, endless patience and imperturbable spirit have guided the office through the most hectic of times. All of us who have been fortunate to work with Steve over the years are deeply grateful for his generosity, his thoughtfulness and his friendship. Steve was born and raised in Orange County, and his entire family still resides in Southern California. He is a staunch supporter of his alma mater, California State University, Fullerton, where he earned his undergraduate and graduate degrees. Upon completing his Masters in History at Cal State Fullerton, he went on to become a professor of world history and American history at Cypress Community College and Mt. San Antonio College. Thankfully for us, Steve's vast knowledge of history includes that of Orange County. He has been most helpful in educating members of my Washington staff who have not been personally familiar with the district, and he could often be found behind the wheel of a car giving his famed Orange County tour to visiting staff. Though he is an Orange County native, Steve is somehow, mysteriously, an ardent Dodgers fan. As a big Angels fan myself, this has created a friendly baseball rivalry in the office, even though Steve always trumps me in baseball trivia regardless of the team we're discussing. I know he'll be missing those Dodger dogs once he leaves California. Steve is a scholar and historian in the truest sense. Beyond academia, his wealth of knowledge ranges from the most important to the most trivial of facts. After working with him for more than twelve years, I am now ready to audition for Jeopardy. One particular anecdote I'll always remember relates to the statue of a rather obscure hero in California history that stands in the United States Capitol. Whenever I lead tours down this particular hall, I always bet my visitors that they cannot name the two statues that represent California. Invariably, most are able to name the most famous statue, Father Junipero Serra, the founder of the California missions. To this day, not a single one has correctly identified the second statue--except, of course, for Steve. Not only did he know the name, but he was an expert on the legacy of Thomas Starr King, the little known leader whose eloquent speeches and brave action saved California for the Union during the Civil War. In fact, Steve's knowledge of Thomas Starr King has even made its way to the pages of Orange County's local newspaper. My staff and I are not the only ones who will miss Steve after he departs the office. A void will be felt throughout the county and the state when he and his family move to their new home in Houston, Texas. While we will miss having him in Orange County, we're excited for the great opportunities that await Steve, his wife Rita, and their daughter Samantha in the Lone Star State. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Steve DiGerlando on the occasion of his last day as my California Chief of Staff. He will be greatly missed, and I wish him every success in his future endeavors.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a close friend and exceptional employee, Cynthia Barile, in anticipation of her last day as Caseworker in my California office. It is with deep gratitude--and more than a little sadness--that my staff and I must wish Cynthia farewell. I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her 6 outstanding years of dedicated service to my office and to the residents of the 48th district of California. Since joining my staff 6 years ago, Cynthia has been a tireless advocate on behalf of Orange County residents. She was first hired in August 1999 as the Office Manager for my California office, and assumed her new administrative duties with great ease. With Cynthia in this critical post, the district office was in the most capable of hands. She quickly demonstrated excellent communication and interpersonal skills and, thanks to her fluency in both English and Spanish, she became a vital link between the staff and our diverse constituency. In 2002, Cynthia was promoted to Congressional Caseworker, a position in which she has excelled for the past 3 years. In this time, Cynthia has personally handled over 2,500 cases and has helped literally thousands of people resolve their problems with Federal agencies. Though she has dealt with nearly every Federal agency during her tenure in my office, she has specialized in cases involving the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service; the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Department of Defense and military branches; the Department of Justice; and the State Department and U.S. Embassies around the world. Cynthia's career in public service predates her work on behalf of the 48th Congressional District. Prior to joining my office, she was the Scheduler and Office Manager for former California Assemblyman Bill Campbell. Bill is a close, personal friend of mine, so I know how greatly he valued Cynthia's years of service to him and the constituents of the 71st Assembly District. Although she is now departing my office, she is not leaving the House of Representatives. Cynthia is moving just 25 miles up the road--and saving herself countless hours of commute time in Orange County traffic--to be a Caseworker in the district office of U.S. Rep. Ed Royce in Fullerton. I have no doubt that she will continue to excel in this new position, and commend my friend and colleague, Ed, for his foresight in bringing her onboard. Over the past 5 years, I have had the privilege of getting to know Cynthia and her family. Her love for and dedication to her two daughters, Brianna and Alexis, are inspiring. While on my staff, Cynthia celebrated her marriage to her husband Mark Barile, and the birth of their son Christian. Along with all those who have had the opportunity to know and work with Cynthia, I have been incredibly impressed by her ability to balance the demands of being a mother, wife and successful career woman. Cynthia's professionalism, patience, and courtesy in working with her colleagues, constituents, and agency representatives have made her an invaluable asset to my staff. She is a dedicated, diligent and loyal public servant, and she will be missed greatly by all of us who have had the honor of working with her. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Cynthia Barile as she prepares to celebrate her last day as Caseworker in my California Office. She will be greatly missed, and I wish her every success in her future endeavors.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished constituent of mine, Colonel Bennie Mann of Laguna Woods, California. Bennie Mann's recent passing follows an inspiring, 31-year career as one of the finest helicopter pilots in the United States Armed Forces. Bennie was born in Yuma, Arizona, on May 31, 1928, to Mr. and Mrs. Bennie H. Mann, Sr. After Colonel Mann graduated from Yuma Union High School in 1946, he attended Arizona State University at Tempe. He joined the Navy in 1950, traveling to Korea aboard the U.S.S. Essex. He was selected for the Aviation Cadet Program the following year, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1953. Following a second tour of duty in Korea and an assignment to instructor duty with the training command at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida, Bennie was transferred to the Marine Corps Air Station in Cherry Point, North Carolina. In 1960, he was ordered to the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejuene, North Carolina, for duty with the Force Communications Company. Bennie, then a captain, received a military science degree from the University of Omaha. After attending the Junior Officers' Course at Quantico, Virginia, in 1962, Mann became a helicopter pilot based in Santa Ana, California. In December 1964, then-Major Mann departed for Vietnam, serving as operations officer and executive officer of Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 163 before moving to Washington, DC, to serve in the policy analysis and career planning branches of the Marine Corps headquarters. Mann returned to Vietnam in December 1969, serving as commanding officer of HMM-161 and as executive officer of MAG-16. After a year in Vietnam, he returned to Santa Ana, where he remained until 1972. In due course, Mann's leadership was rewarded with a promotion to the rank of colonel. He then received an MBA degree from Pepperdine University and joined the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, serving as assistant chief of staff before assuming command of MAG-16 in 1977. In June 1978, Colonel Mann became chief of staff of the Third Marine Amphibious Force, Okinawa, Japan. Colonel Mann retired from the United States Marine Corps on December 23, 1981. He was the first Marine helicopter pilot in our Nation's history to be awarded the Navy Cross. Colonel Mann was the deserving recipient of a host of other awards, including the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Service Medal, and 37 Air Medals. Colonel Mann recently passed away, and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery on July 7. He is survived by his wife Carroll of Laguna Woods, California, his sons George and Russ, his daughter Connie Lee Coln, his nine grandchildren, and his six great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the California delegation and the people of Orange County, I am honored to salute Colonel Mann for his service to this great country and to extend my condolences to his friends and family.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Judge Gary L. Taylor, who is retiring today as a United States District Court judge after a remarkable 19-year judicial career. Judge Taylor, an Orange County native, graduated from Santa Ana High School in 1956 before going on to earn both undergraduate and law degrees from the University of California-Los Angeles. Following law school, Judge Taylor served his country as a lawyer for the U.S. Army in Missouri before moving back to Orange County, where he enjoyed a tremendously successful 20-year career as a business litigator. Judge Taylor was appointed as a Superior Court Judge by Governor George Deukmejian in 1986. Just 4 years later, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Taylor to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. He was confirmed by the Senate without opposition before being sworn into office on October 1, 1990. In his nearly 20 years on the bench, Judge Taylor has demonstrated the best qualities of a trial judge: he is a first-rate legal thinker who is fair-minded, courteous, and unfailingly ethical. He is uniformly respected by the parties and attorneys who appear before him. The president of the Federal Bar Association of Orange County has aptly called him ``an outstanding jurist''--and to those of us in Orange County who know him as a friend, he is indeed that and more. Having had the pleasure of knowing Judge Taylor for many years, I can attest to his quick, agile mind, his kind and generous manner, and his infectious enthusiasm. In the early 1990s, I worked closely with Judge Taylor to win congressional approval of a desperately needed federal courthouse in Orange County. Before the Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse was built, Judge Taylor and the other Orange County federal judges were housed in trailers in Santa Ana, and the lack of adequate facilities in Orange County severely impeded the ability of the court to serve the taxpayers. Judge Taylor was a tireless advocate for building a federal courthouse in Orange County, and his hard work was instrumental in convincing the Congress to authorize construction of the world-class facility we now enjoy in Santa Ana. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of the people of Orange County whom it is my privilege to represent, congratulations to Judge Gary L. Taylor on an exemplary judicial career and an unfailing commitment to public service and the welfare of his fellow citizens.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and congratulate the South Coast Chinese Cultural Center on the occasion of its grand opening celebration on Sunday, April 24, 2005 in Irvine, California. This important and vibrant cultural center will serve as a gathering place for thousands of Californians. This is a center that will serve as a place of community bonding and fellowship; a place to build new relationships and to foster old ones; a place to learn about Chinese history and to teach younger generations about Chinese culture and language; and, of course, a place to relax and to play mah-jong with the best of them. The South Coast Chinese Cultural Association, founded in 1977, is the heart and soul behind this new center. For 28 years the SCCCA has served and supported Orange County's Chinese community. The mission of the association is the same today as it was in 1977: to promote an, understanding of Chinese culture, to preserve Chinese heritage, and to support the rights of all Chinese Americans. This outstanding organization currently serves more than 1,000 member families in the greater Orange County area. The South Coast Chinese Cultural Center was born out of the idea that the association could better serve its members from a central campus. Tradition is a large and vital part of Chinese culture and way of life. Ancient traditions continue with new life here in America in places such as the South Coast Chinese Cultural Center. Younger generations will have the opportunity to learn from their elders about the timeless art of Chinese Brush Painting, Chinese Calligraphy, Chinese Swordsmanship, and Chinese Martial Arts. The Irvine Chinese School, now in its 28th year, will continue to serve the community at this new center by giving new meaning to Chinese language and lessons for future generations of Chinese Americans. The heritage of the Old World will not be lost so long as there are places like the South Coast Chinese Cultural Center in which to congregate. This grand opening celebration of the South Coast Chinese Cultural Center was a momentous occasion for not only the Chinese community, but also for people of all backgrounds throughout Orange County and all of Southern California. This center aims to unite the unique and diverse ethnic framework that makes ours such a thriving and vibrant community. I am particularly proud that the South Coast Chinese Cultural Center--the largest center of its kind on the West Coast--has chosen to call Irvine its home. The leadership exemplified by the Chinese community in Orange County in building this wonderful center has shown us that, with a great vision and dedication, we can ensure that the global traditions and cultures that have been brought to America's melting pot will live on for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the South Coast Chinese Cultural Center on the occasion of its recent grand opening.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 345 I am recorded as having voted ``aye.'' I intended to vote ``no,'' and ask that the Record reflect this. Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Andy Stokes, this year's 255th National Football League draft pick. The final pick of the NFL draft is a position of tremendous honor in my hometown of Newport Beach, California. For the past 30 years, the NFL Underdog has been treated to a week-long celebration in his honor. This annual tradition of Irrelevant Week was founded by my friend Paul Salata as an occasion for ``Doing Something Nice For No Reason.'' Irrelevant Week XXX, which commences today, will celebrate ``Mr. Irrelevant'' Andy Stokes, a tight end from William Penn University in Iowa, who was chosen by the New England Patriots as the final pick in the 2005 NFL draft. Though Andy Stokes may have been the final pick for the Patriots, the St. George, Utah native will be number one in Newport Beach as we use this occasion to celebrate the NFL Underdog and to recognize all former ``Mr. Irrelevants'' from the past three decades. Among the highlighted events for Irrelevant Week XXX are a welcoming party, grand banquet, and activities at various Southern California resorts. The fun and games will include a football game with Mickey and Goofy at Disneyland, a tailgate party at Angel Stadium before the Angels vs. Dodgers baseball game, and a visit to Hollywood Park with other NFL alumni for a day of horse racing action. This special anniversary Irrelevant Week also serves as an opportunity to pay tribute to its 30 years of service to our community. Though Irrelevant Week is a lighthearted affair, over the years it has helped to raise over one million dollars for charities that help youth in both the academic and athletic arenas. This year, at the behest of Newport Beach Fire Chief Tim Riley, who serves on the Irrelevant Week steering committee, Irrelevant Week will be sending 15 to 20 children to special camps designed to lend emotional support and friendship to child burn survivors. Other beneficiaries of Irrelevant Week XXX include Costa Mesa United and Orangewood Children's Home. Irrelevant Week has long been recognized by the NFL, ESPN and others in the sports world because it is a celebration of the underdog. Moreover, Irrelevant Week provides an opportunity for sharing community spirit and providing support for children in need. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I would like to commend Paul Salata and his family for founding and carrying on the tradition of Irrelevant Week for the past 30 years. I also ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Andy Stokes on his selection as ``Mr. Irrelevant'' and wishing him the very best for a long and successful career in the National Football League.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to honor the world's greatest chess player, Garry Kasparov, on the occasion of his retirement. To chess enthusiasts around the world, Garry Kasparov's announced retirement from professional chess comes as an enormous disappointment. By the standards of international chess he is the greatest chess player of all time. His retirement at the relatively youthful age of 41 raises questions about unfulfilled possibilities. But given his legendary achievements, we can only stand in profound admiration. He is a true champion. Throughout his career, Garry Kasparov has been a champion of human rights as well. He has been resolutely committed to the freedom of Russia and all of her citizens, and to the replacement of the grisly legacy of Soviet communism with genuine democracy, free speech, freedom of the press, religious liberty, and the rule of law. As chairman of Committee 2008: Free Choice, Mr. Kasparov is leading a natural coalition of concerned Russians dedicated to safeguarding democratic institutions in that country. It is a task worthy of his considerable ability. Mr. Speaker, for over a decade I have had the privilege of calling Garry Kasparov a good friend. I know that everyone in this chamber shares with me their good wishes for his continued success, of gratitude for all that he has given of himself and to make the world a better place.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for purposes of closing debate.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), both for his generous remarks but, more importantly, for his hard work on this piece of legislation over a period of several months and, as he pointed out, through ultimately a very long, arduous markup in the committee where members on both sides had an unlimited opportunity to offer amendments and consider a variety of topics. As we conclude general debate and prepare to move into debate on the specific amendments on this bill, I think we can recognize one important fact, and that is that we are all agreed on the essence of the underlying bill. We have some things, each of us, that we might like to add to this bill, and I predict that in due course, over the rest of this year, we will have an opportunity again on this House floor to take up issues, including aviation security, chemical security, port security, and so on. But the entirety of what we do accomplish in this bill is bipartisan in nature and agreed upon by the members on both sides of the aisle, at least in the Committee on Homeland Security, and we will soon see about the House as a whole. That is because we have allocated the $32 billion, for what is now the third largest Cabinet department, in a way that demonstrably advances our number one goal of preventing terrorism in the future on American soil, directed against American citizens, protecting America's most critical infrastructure against terrorist attack, and being prepared to respond and recover should, against all our best preparations, that ever occur in the future. In order to bring us to this point, we have had to have a great deal of bipartisan assistance, all motivated by the best interests of the country from Members on both sides. I specifically want to mention the vice chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon); the chairmen and ranking members of our five subcommittees, and the Staff Directors on both sides, Ben Cohen on the Majority side and Calvin Humphreys on the minority side. The staffs have done extraordinary professional work, and their staffs are drawn from, in many cases, the executive branch, with experience about precisely the work and the programs that we are overseeing in this legislation. Many of them have come from the intelligence community, others come from the Coast Guard and other branches of the armed services. We can be very proud in this House about the institutionalization of the role of homeland security oversight and authorization that has been set in motion as a result of a decision of leadership on both sides, and I want to conclude by taking this opportunity, once again, to thank the House leadership for its very wise decision to create permanent authorizing and oversight responsibility in this Congress on an institutionalized basis, and then, today, taking the next important step of institutionalizing an annual authorization process so that together the legislative branch and the executive branch will closely collaborate on what is the essence of our national security responsibility to all Americans: making sure that we are safe and secure on American territory for the American citizens. So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will draw this general debate to a conclusion, and I look forward to working with the body on the several amendments that have been made in order under the rule. Mr. Chairman, I will at this time introduce into the Record a series of letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and other standing committees, including the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, concerning jurisdictional issues raised by this legislation. Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, May 18, 2005. Hon. Christopher Cox, Chairman, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your willingness to consult and work with me as you guided H.R. 1817, ``the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006'' from introduction, through the Homeland Security Committee, and to the floor. As you know, the Committee on Government Reform has been interested in a number of provisions within H.R. 1817. The Committee has been concerned that the expansion of the Department's responsibilities for information sharing in Title II, Subtitle B, Homeland Security Information Sharing and Analysis Enhancement, not lessen the Department's responsibility to follow government- wide policies and procedures for the sharing of information. In addition to the information sharing provisions of Subtitle B, the Committee has specific jurisdictional interests in the following provisions of your substitute: Sec. 201-- Consolidated Background Check Process; Sec. 216--Coordination of homeland security threat analysis provided to non-Federal officials; Sec. 217--9/11 Homeland Security Fellows Program; Sec. 221--IAIP Personnel Recruitment; Sec. 302--Technology Development and Transfer; Sec. 303-- Review of Antiterrorism Activities; Title III, Subtitle B-- Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement; Sec. 334--Protection of Information; and Sec. 502--GAO Report to Congress. I would like to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 1817. As you know, H.R. 1817 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Government Reform. Because of your willingness to work with us to resolve issues of concern to the Committee and to include those improvements to the bill in your amendment in the nature of a substitute on the floor, the Committee on Government Reform did not consider H.R. 1817. However, the Committee has done so only with the understanding that this procedural route would not prejudice the Committee on Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation. I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform should this bill or a similar Senate bill be considered in conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record during the House debate of this bill. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tom Davis, Chairman.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on the other side.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the other members of the committee right in the teeth of this debate about the differences between the base bill and the Democratic substitute simply to remind us what we agree about. We agree about the base bill. And what we are talking about doing in the Democratic substitute is, in some part, restating the base bill and, in some part, adding money to it to go further. One of the principles that I hope we can establish in this annual authorization process is that when we bring a bipartisan DHS authorization bill to the floor, that that bill is within the House- passed budget; it bears a close connection to the appropriations process, and this year we have a unique circumstance where we are on the floor literally 1 day after the homeland security appropriation bill has passed, so we know exactly what kind of money we are dealing with so that when we impose national security priorities on the executive branch and we provide policy guidance to the Department of Homeland Security, we are doing so in the real world, not in a fantasy world with pretend numbers and budget resources that simply do not exist. The only real objection that I have to the Democratic substitute, because I agree with a great deal of the policy, is that it takes $7 billion from thin air and adds it on top of, not in substitute for, the provisions of the base bill. As a result, it is not about setting priorities; it is merely a wish list without any sense of priority. I would say that it abdicates the responsibility of the authorizing committee and places all the burden on the appropriators were it not for the fact that we just voted on the appropriation bill yesterday. So every single Member knows that this is not a real $7 billion we are playing with here. Rather than being called the Complete Homeland Security Act, it might be called the Death By Report Act because it does not help the Department of Homeland Security to run down terrorists; it instead sends them off on a mission to fill out reports. This substitute, in one of its key differences from the base text, is very heavy on reports and on plans and on studies and on assessments. It includes no fewer than 61 new initial reports, annual reports, follow-up reports, plans, strategies, studies, and reviews. That is not congressional direction; it is congressional misdirection. There has got to be a focus on preventing terrorism, on doing the job, this most important, fundamental national security mission that we have assigned to the Department to do, rather than filling out paperwork. The substitute itself is 221 pages long, and in some respects it is not ready for action by the full House because its provisions have not yet been vetted even in hearings in subcommittee or full committee before the Department. I daresay that some of those things, such as port security, chemical plant security, and so on, are policies with which I would agree. They are things that we intend to do as a committee this year. I have stated over and over, as recently as yesterday before the Committee on Rules, that because this is the first authorization bill for a Department which itself has existed for only 2 years, and which was thoroughly authorized in a charter written from top to bottom by this Congress just a few years ago, this bill is smaller this year than it will ever be in future years. Moreover, because the Secretary is in the midst of his 90-day review of the Department's operation top to bottom as he takes the helm of what for him is a brand-new responsibility, we are trying to give him a few days more, he is due to report to us in June, to give us his roadmap. And that means we will be back on this floor with more authorizing legislation on the very subjects covered by the substitute amendment. For all those reasons, I respectfully, but strongly, oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the gentleman from New Jersey that the point he raises about chemical security is an extremely important one, and I wanted to make sure that all the Members knew that on June 14 the Committee on Homeland Security will be having a hearing on that very topic. We intend, in the balance of this year, to go very deeply into our responsibilities for chemical plant security.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw our attention to what is actually in the motion to recommit. It consists of 15 sequential sections that do nothing more than authorize monies, and a final section, which my colleague from Massachusetts just spoke about, concerning air cargo which contains no reference to money, whatsoever, but which, according to the Department of Homeland Security, would effectively double the budget of the TSA. Let me read to you the dollar amounts in each of the sections, because I want to draw Members' attention to the fact that there are no offsets. There are no sources of funding for these provisions. Section 601 adds $20 million without any funding source; section 602, $1 million; section 603, a quarter billion dollars; section 604, $400 million dollars and so on. I mention this because we are here on the floor for the first time considering the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill in an annual process that is beginning now, but which will go on for the indefinite future. And we are seeking to establish a precedent. And that precedent is that just as with other national security authorize legislation that we bring to the floor, in this bill, it is real money. In this bill, we are authorizing funding within the House- passed budget and consistent with amounts that we actually intend to appropriate. Now, we have a unique opportunity this year because the order of consideration of the appropriations bill and the authorization bill was reversed. Just yesterday on the floor of this House, Members voted on the appropriations bill so we actually know real dollar numbers that Secretary Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security will have to work with. And virtually every Member on this floor just voted for that bill yesterday. So, if we are to come to the floor today and vote for funding figures which are different from what we know will actually happen, we will be placing priorities before the Department of Homeland Security and mandates on the Department of Homeland Security that we know it cannot meet. There are some other anomalies with the funding provisions in the motion to recommit that I am certain must be drafting mistakes. I do not doubt for a moment the passion of the gentleman from Massachusetts when it comes to the question of screening air cargo, but I have to draw Members' attention to the fact that the dollar figure that is authorized for the Department of Homeland Security for air cargo in the motion to recommit is $100 million. That would be a $15 million cut from the actual number that we appropriated last year and a $28 million cut from what we just voted for air cargo screening in yesterday's appropriations bill. I do not know why we would do that. The same thing is true for air marshals. This House is very interested in putting air marshals on airplanes to protect the flying public. The motion to recommit sets the authorized funding level for air marshals at $83 million. The appropriations bill that we just voted for yesterday would give the Department of Homeland Security $700 million, not $83 million for air marshals. Why would we cut air marshals, unless it is a drafting mistake in the motion to recommit? As I said, this is an historic moment on the floor of this House, and I want to draw our attention to what we are about to do, as soon as we finish the motion to recommit. We are about to vote on what will be the first of an annual authorization for the Department of Homeland Security. That bill is bipartisan. Both sides agree on everything that is in it. It fully funds 2,000 new Border Patrol agents. It establishes a top level new Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security within the Department of Homeland Security. It beefs up the intelligence capability at the Department of Homeland Security. It reforms the threat warning system. It establishes the Homeland Security Information Network that will link thousands of local agencies across the country in real-time to the Department. It does all of this and much more within the House-passed budget and within the confines of the appropriations bill that we just passed yesterday. This is exactly the norm that is set for us in the authorizing legislation that comes from the Committee on Armed Services to fund the Pentagon and that comes to us from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to fund the intelligence community. Those authorization bills all live within the budget. So, too, must we in this homeland security authorization bill this year and every year hereafter. To my colleagues on the Democratic side, I understand what they are doing in this motion, seeking to draw attention to critical issues such as cargo security and chemical plant security that are not yet the subject of authorizing language on the floor of this House. I commit to my colleagues that this bill on which we agree is a beginning and that our new committee will use its jurisdiction to develop bipartisan legislation on these subjects, just as we have on first responders, just as we did last week on the floor of this House, and just as we have on this historic $34 billion authorization for the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Speaker, if I may in conclusion say that I am thoroughly impressed with the effort and the work that has been put forth on both sides of the aisle on this bill, with the performance and the leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my colleague. May I say that there has not been 1 day since September 11 when any Member of this House has forgotten the lesson of homeland security that we learned on that day, chief among which is that we must always put the security of this country ahead of partisan politics. The bill that we will vote on in a moment, the homeland security authorization bill, does that, and I look forward to standing shoulder- to-shoulder with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), with all the members of the committee, and with, I believe, all the Members of this House.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COX. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the substitute amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. If my colleague from Mississippi would indulge me for a moment, I would like to yield the first portion of my time for purposes of a colloquy to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and I yield to him 1 minute.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we begin today a historic debate on the floor of this House that commences the annual authorization process for the Department of Homeland Security. This annual process is designed to recognize that the function of the Department of Homeland Security is the essence of our government's national security mission, protecting the American people and our territory. This is the same national security mission ultimately that is performed in different ways by the Pentagon and by the intelligence community. Both the Pentagon and the intelligence community for this same reason undergo an annual authorization process in the Congress. That is a collaboration between the executive and the legislative branches that is necessary to ensure that we fulfill this most vital function. We must remember that the Department of Homeland Security in the executive branch and the Committees on Homeland Security in this House and in the other body were formed because the congressional leadership and the President recognized that neither branch of government as then constituted was properly organized to deal with the 21st century threat of terrorism directed against Americans on our own territory. On an ongoing basis, the Congress and the executive need to focus together on this vital process and the annual authorization is the means for doing so. The Department of Homeland Security authorization bill that is before the House today reflects an impressive bipartisan effort. That is due, in large part, to the strong and able leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). The Members on both sides of the aisle have never forgotten for a single day since September 11, 2001, that the security of the American people must be placed above politics. So as we meet today to consider the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill for fiscal year 2006, we find that we have forged agreement on many important challenges facing our country and the Department, and on ways to begin to address them. In establishing the procedures for bringing this annual authorization bill to the floor, we have been guided by the long-standing practices of the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Those committees have always brought to the floor bills that live within the spending boundaries established in the House-passed budget. H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill also does exactly that. To have credibility, a national security authorization bill must set the executive's priorities within the framework of its actual budgetary resources. It does little good for us to pretend that the Department of Homeland Security has infinite budget resources, and then give it mandates that it cannot carry out. So this bill funds priorities within the overall DHS budget, not on top of it. Within that constraint, we have been able to accomplish a great deal more for the security of the American people and for this country. We fully fund the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents called for in the Intelligence Reform Act passed last year, and we increase the Department of Homeland Security's funding by nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars for this purpose. The bill authorizes $40 million so that immigration and customs enforcement can expedite illegal alien removal. It provides $5 million in new funding to implement the Safety Act so we can more quickly deploy anti-terrorism technologies to protect the American people from terrorism. It adds $20 million for interoperable communications and technical assistance for our first responders. It increases funding for cybersecurity research and development and for cybersecurity education and training. Within the Department of Homeland Security budget that this House has already approved, we have authorized $40 million in additional funds to support the training of State and local law enforcement personnel so they can help enforce Federal immigration laws. This provision is contained in a separate amendment that I will offer today with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary. On these and all other funding decisions in the bill, we have had to make hard choices and set priorities. That is our responsibility. As a result, we have not funded every initiative to protect against every conceivable means by which terrorists might mount an attack. But what we have done is based our funding decisions on the best intelligence available, on terrorist capabilities and intentions, and on the actual risk of terrorist attack. The bill also advances our prime objective of preventing terrorism by improving our intelligence capability within the Department of Homeland Security. Prevention of terrorism requires that information sharing about terrorist threats be seamless, that it be timely, and that that communication be secure. That is exactly what this bill accomplishes, both within the Department of Homeland Security and across the Federal Government and with our State, local and private sector partners. It provides the Department of Homeland Security with new tools to build a robust intelligence capability. It strengthens the partnership with these other stakeholders. Those partnerships are essential in sustaining the counterterrorism mission into the foreseeable future, and the bill will help the Department of Homeland Security to streamline and integrate the multitude of different background checks and security screenings that are conducted for travelers, workers and other critical personnel who are required to undergo security checks by the Department. The bill revises the color-coded homeland security advisory system to make sure that threat warnings are specific and informative, and wherever possible, that these warnings be targeted. By targeting these warnings to the areas of the country or sectors of the economy that are threatened, we can be sure that we are warning the right people and not needlessly scaring the wrong people. We also need to make sure that the Federal Government gives clear guidance and speaks with one voice when it issues such warnings. This bill will ensure this happens. This authorization bill is shorter this year than it will ever be in future years. That is because, first, the Department itself is only 2 years old, and Congress has just recently written the entire legislative charter for the Department. Second, we have a new homeland security Secretary who is just concluding his top to bottom 90-day review of the entire department. We want to give Secretary Chertoff the opportunity to draw his own road map, both organizationally and programatically, of where this Department should go. We will proceed on additional authorizing legislation later this year once we have had the opportunity through hearings and oversight to evaluate the Secretary's proposals. Mr. Chairman, I conclude by thanking the Members on both sides of the aisle and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for their foresight in creating the Committee on Homeland Security within the House of Representatives and for allowing us to initiate this annual authorization process on the floor. This is a significant milestone on our long journey toward keeping America safe from terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on our side, and I reserve the balance of the time for closing.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1817.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and other conforming changes in the engrossment of H.R. 1817 to reflect the actions of the House.