John Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004. While I wholeheartedly understand the need for a national energy policy, I cannot in good conscience, support this legislation. I am a proponent of tax incentives to spur growth, both in our economy, and in different sectors of our Nation's energy industries. The promotion of renewable forms of energy is a responsible move in many ways. It diversifies our energy supply, which curbs demand and lessens our dependence on foreign oil. Moreover, these renewable forms of energy are environmentally friendly, reducing emissions which prevent pollution, such as acid rain, from contaminating our lakes and forests. However, I feel there is much room for improvement in this bill. Certainly, more steps must be taken to control our Nation's gasoline prices and prevent massive blackouts, such as the blackout last year in the Midwest and Northeast. Clearly, the most pressing concern I have with this legislation is the MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) liability waiver. In one town in my district alone, Hyde Park, New York, there are nearly 100 homes with water contaminated by MTBE. Some of these homeowners are considering filing liability lawsuits against the MTBE manufactures, and some have already reached settlements with these manufactures for cleanup. However, the retroactivity provision of this bill will negate their arguments made in these claims. Furthermore, there are over 14,000 MTBE sites awaiting cleanup throughout New York State. This will, undoubtedly, transfer the liability from the manufacturers to the taxpayer. Why should we adopt such a dangerous policy in a time when we call for fiscal responsibility? I stand in clear opposition of this issue. Mr. Speaker, I hope this Congress will consider the aforementioned points on this legislation and we draft an energy bill that is both responsible and effective.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on this Memorial Day and remember our fallen heroes, I would like to offer special recognition for four incredibly brave men from my district who sacrificed their lives fighting the war on terror. On September 10, 2003, Staff Sgt. Joseph E. Robsky, Jr. of the 759th Ordnance Company was killed when an improvised explosive device he was called on to neutralize detonated. Staff Sgt. Robsky was 31 years old. On September 15, 2003, 31 year old Staff Sgt. Kevin Kimmerly of North Creek, New York was killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack on the streets of Baghdad. On April 8 of this year, a rocket-propelled grenade killed Army Spc. Isaac Michael Nieves as insurgents in Bani Saad, Iraq, ambushed his patrol. Spc. Nieves, from Sidney, New York, was 20 years old. And on April 11, Easter Sunday of this year, 21 year old Pfc. Nathan P. Brown of South Glens Falls, New York was ambushed while on patrol with his unit in Samarra, Iraq. Nathan Brown served in the Army National Guard's 2nd Battalion, 108th Infantry, 1st Armored Division out of Glens Falls, New York. Each of these remarkable young men left behind family and friends they loved and cared for. They were cut down in the prime of life by those who hate the very freedoms these soldiers, these Americans, these heroes, were trying to protect. What makes their sacrifice even more special is the fact that not only were they fighting against the terrorists who have declared war on America, but that they were also fighting for millions of Iraqi citizens who yearn for the freedoms that so many of us take for granted. With each passing day in the war on terror I think about these heroes and the ultimate sacrifice they made so our mission can be victorious. It is because of men like Joe Robsky, Kevin Kimmerly, Isaac Michael Nieves, Nathan Brown, and the hundreds of other Americans who lost their lives that we must succeed in our mission. I refuse to tarnish their memories by fighting this war in vain. This Memorial Day, and all others afterward, will have extra significance for me. Casting a vote to send our troops into harm's way is the most difficult thing I have done since coming to Congress. While I remain convinced of the justness of our cause, I now have an even greater appreciation for our men and women fighting the war on terror thousands of miles away from their homes and families. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to honor the memories of the 20th District's bravest soldiers. I will spend my Memorial Day praying for their families, for the successful completion of their mission and for the safe return of all our troops. God bless them all, and God bless America.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. This is a big day for me personally because this is a piece of legislation that represents an agreement on a piece of legislation that I first introduced 4 years ago, and I want to talk a little about the personal aspects of this and how I got involved in the whole anabolic steroid precursor and designer steroid issue. My son, who I love and who I am lucky enough to get to spend some time with, and I work out fairly regularly together, Mr. Speaker. And, fortunately, about 5 years ago, at one of our workouts, my son was talking to me about some of his friends and his colleagues and some of their training habits. It was also 5 years ago almost immediately after the Mark McGwire record-setting home run streak in Major League Baseball. My son said that he and his friends had all been talking about how they could get better, how they could get bigger, stronger, faster, hit the ball better; and one of the ideas they had, by virtue of some of the advertising and some of the stories they heard about Mark McGwire, was to use a substance called andro. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), no greater a symbol of the American sports movement than Coach Tom Osborne at Nebraska, mentioned in his remarks andro and its effects, and the record was pretty clear that after Mark McGwire hit his home runs, performing under legal rules established at that time, the use of andro quadrupled, with teenagers making up a large portion of that population. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, one out of every 40 high school students admitted to using andro in the past year, and something in the range of 3 to 4 percent of junior high school students had talked about and were using anabolic steroids. Now, 20 years ago, we addressed the issue of anabolic steroids and established very clearly the health risks that were attendant to it. But what we find now is this almost insidious effort to market products meant simply to skirt the law, simply to subvert the testing processes that exist and targeting a very vulnerable part of our population, young athletes, people who cared about their fitness, and marketing these products in order to take advantage of that circumstance. So this legislation coming forward today represents Congress' response to that, an appropriate response that will effectively make it illegal to sell over the counter now, with that presumption of sales over the counter, that a product is safe and does what it says it does. It will make it illegal to sell those products over the counter at the GNCs, at the Wal-Marts, or any of the other places. And what it effectively does is protect our kids, which is, obviously, a very important part. Now, make no mistake about it, keeping our children safe is far more important than restoring the integrity to the sports world, Mr. Speaker; but with the Anabolic Steroid Control Act we accomplish both of those things. In athletics today, the lines of fair play have been blurred by the prevalence of steroid precursors and designer steroids; and athletes have become more creative in turning those substances, such as andro, into their muscle-building cousins. Now, I want to respond a little to one of the prior speakers, and this was the gentlewoman who preceded me most immediately, and that was the issue of DHEA and whether we have DHEA mentioned in the list of products specifically mentioned here. As someone 4 years ago that introduced legislation that was very broad and said that any precursor or any designer steroid ought to be outlawed, I came to recognize that that legislation, under the instruction of the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, probably would not have survived judicial scrutiny. What we have in this legislation is the perfect balance to make sure that the legislation we pass forward will have the effect we choose it to have, and that is making sure that manufacturers are putting on the shelves products that do what they say and are safe, and, secondly, outlawing those that are not. So whether DHEA is mentioned in this legislation or not, or any other product that is devised, and there will be others the manufacturing community will come forward with, whether they are made illegal or not does not really matter here, Mr. Speaker. The burden of proof is now shifted to them. The effective tools that we need in order to protect our kids, to protect athletes, and protect the next generation, and to protect the integrity of sports are here. That is why the FDA, the DEA, the United States Olympic Committee, the NFL, the NCAA, all of those groups, the U.S. Anti-Doping Association, CASPER, and all of those groups have come out in support of this legislation. They recognize that this long fight, begun 20 years ago in this body, is coming to the right conclusion, a conclusion that protects the American people. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the hard work and efforts of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). He committed with me 4 years ago to pass this legislation, and we have gotten that done. I also want to recognize the great work of the Committee on the Judiciary and its chairman, who gave us not only an opportunity to be heard but carried this legislation, through the ranking member; and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble); and his ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for their subcommittee work on all this. This is a strong bipartisan effort that is for the good of the American people. Finally, and in conclusion, I would point out that all major sport entities of any credibility in this Nation have endorsed this legislation. It is time for Major League Baseball, and most specifically the Major League Baseball Players Association, to end the foot-dragging and to go forward and ban in their own sport these substances that threaten the integrity of their sport. And do it not just because the integrity of their sport is threatened, but do it as well because it is good for America, good for American athletes, and good for the next generation.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support Chairman Duncan Hunter and the House Armed Services Committee efforts to provide our troops with the equipment necessary to successfully accomplish their missions in the global war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom, more specifically. Specifically, the FY05 Defense Authorization bill funds procurement initiatives near-and-dear to my heart, to include full funding for the Up Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, providing the ability to purchase over 6,000 up armored Humvees, and funding for ballistic armor for other Humvees and trucks, as well as Interceptor Body Armor funding. Mr. Chairman, this is of particular concern to me since recently I approached the Chairman after several U.S. Army National Guard soldiers from my District in Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion of the 108th Light Infantry were killed and wounded on Easter Sunday during an attack in Samarra, Iraq. Private First Class Nathan Brown was killed in action after being struck by a rooftop fired RPG while riding in a 5-ton truck. Armored and up armored vehicles and body armor equipment are not just necessary but required, and it is Congress' job to provide these resources to troops in combat. The Pentagon must know it is Congress' intent to provide all the tools needed to successfully complete their missions in Iraq and around the world. The message Congress is sending to the bureaucracy that supports our military and the field commanders in theater is the same. Our collective expectation is for the Department of Defense to put this equipment to the best use immediately, in order to allow the men and women on the ground sacrificing their lives to fully succeed. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, I would like to take this time to honor an extraordinary organization. The Vascular Birthmark Foundation is dedicated to changing the lives of those children who were born with vascular birthmarks or tumors, such as hemangiomas and port wine stains. Vascular birthmarks occur in approximately 40,000 children born annually. One in 10 children is born with a vascular birthmark; and of these children, one in 100 is born with a birthmark that will require the attention of a medical specialist. Such a birthmark can have a huge impact on the life of the child and his or her family. Fortunately, the Vascular Birthmark Foundation exists to lend support and help to those affected. The New York-based Vascular Birthmark Foundation promotes public awareness of vascular birthmarks, provides educational resources, funds research projects, and helps families and individuals receive the information and support they deserve. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing May 15, 2004, the National Vascular Birthmark Foundation Awareness Day.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, because this bill is coming to the floor as a conference report, I am unable to offer a very important amendment. My amendment would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to complete and issue its rulemaking in CC Docket 02-33 within 60 days of passage of this bill. This is proceeding pending at the FCC to determine whether broadband facilities provided by telephone companies should be regulated as telephone services under Title II of the Communications Act or as information services under Title I of the Communications Act. The FCC adopted the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on February 14, 2002. Comments were filed on May 3, 2002 and reply comments on July 1, 2002. The FCC, however, has been sitting on its hands for the last 16 months. This is the same agency that, once it voted on its triennial review report and order spent another six months before actually releasing the text of the order. The FCC has not ruled on the petitions for reconsideration pending on the triennial review. My amendment will also require the FCC to rule on these petitions for reconsideration within 60 days of passage of this bill. Unfortunately, the FCC's Nero seems to be fiddling again while the telecommunications industry's Rome is burning. The Industry is in state of regulatory stasis concerning broadband. Companies do not know what the broadband rules will be, so they cannot make sound decisions as to when, where, and even whether to deploy broadband. This is an industry that has lost more than 500,000 jobs during its current economic slide. This inaction is inexcusable. The delay is further harming an industry already seriously wounded. There is little doubt that ubiquitous deployment of broadband will boost the U.S. economy, and particularly the moribund telecommunications sector. A recently updated study by Robert Crandall, Charles Jackson, and Hal Singer states that ``the cumulative increase in capital expenditures associated with the ubiquitous adoption of current generation (broadband) technologies will result in the cumulative increase in gross domestic product (GDP) of $179.7 billion (over nineteen years) and will sustain an additional 61,000 jobs per year.'' Yet, the FCC continues to ignore the negative economic impact its indecision has on the industry. All my amendment does is require the FCC to complete something it should have done over a year ago. We've given the FCC enough time. The American people are waiting and the U.S. Congress has had enough of the FCC's paralysis.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, please be advised that on the Berkley motion to instruct on November 19, 2003, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' when my intent was to vote ``nay.''

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, protecting and securing America's homeland remains a top priority within out national borders and abroad. Global stability or instability directly affects the United States in all areas, rural or suburban. Investing money now to defeat terrorists overseas where they plot evil schemes is unquestionably better than spending money later to rebuild New York City or Los Angeles, after thousands of innocent lives are potentially lost. The war on terrorism is one America cannot afford to lose. Our way of life is at stake as we defend freedom, democracy and peace around the world. I support this approach. One necessary campaign in the war against terror was in Iraq. We went to war to dispose of a brutal dictator guilty of the most atrocious human rights violations in the modern world. I voted to support the use of force against Iraq for many reasons: a litany of ruthless atrocities by Saddam Hussein against his own people; decades of deception and violation of United Nations resolutions; invading neighboring countries; and, links to al Qaeda and other terrorist training camps. David Kay recently issued a statement that his team has indeed found substantial evidence that Iraq had many programs hidden from view to produce nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and had active illegal programs to deliver them using ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. I believe this is 95 percent of a smoking gun. I remain convinced these are solid justifications for war and asking our brave men and women in uniform to potentially sacrifice their lives so we can live in freedom. The rebuilding of Iraq will take considerable time, effort and resources. It requires the support and will of the American people. The country is devastated after being neglected for years by an evil leader that spent money on palaces and weapons instead of infrastructure. America has no desire to be an occupying power in Iraq but instead wants to transfer power and accountability to the Iraqi people as soon as realistically possible. The $18.6 billion portion as part of the President's supplemental request for Iraq reconstruction funds is an important part of the overall effort to win the war on terrorism by helping to rebuild Iraq. The President recently told the country that Iraq has become the central front in the war on terrorism. Without this money, there is a real risk Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorism. This request will pay for essential needs, not Iraqi foreign debt or frivolous desires. The President's request includes funding to enable this progress to continue. It will help create and train the New Iraqi Army to enable Iraqi forces to work with Coalition forces to eliminate remaining remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime. The request also include money to equip and train an Iraqi police service, civil defense force, and border patrols--all of which will increase the security of and reduce the need for U.S. troops performing these missions. Finally, the supplemental request includes funds for U.S. force protection through additional body armor and quality of life funding for extended hazardous duty pay and travel assistance for military families. After achieving military victory, we must now ensure a peaceful and prosperous Iraq emerges.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Joseph F. Alaskey, Jr. On October 21st, 2003, Mr. Alaskey will be honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Capital District Senior Issues Forum in Albany, New York. He is being honored for his heroics and bravery during his service to this great nation in World War II. Mr. Speaker, on the night of December 8, 1944, the 2nd Platoon, Company A, 1276th Engineer Combat Battalion, with whom Mr. Alaskey was a Utility Repairman, attempted a patrol crossing of the Roer River in Flossdorf, Germany. While they were crossing, the enemies opened nearby dams, causing the river to flood. Mr. Speaker, with a current rushing at 9 feet per second, Mr. Alaskey's assault boat capsized, slammed into a nearby bridge, and began to sink. As many of the men in Mr. Alaskey's battalion were drowning due to the weight of ammunition strapped to their backs, Mr. Alaskey was able to hold onto a beam and pull his battalion-mate J.C. Dyer from the raging river to safety. Mr. Speaker, such an act of valor cannot go overlooked. Risking one's life for the sake of another is the greatest gift anyone can possibly give. I am proud to rise today in honor of Mr. Alaskey and his courage. I also extend congratulations to him for this truly distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) said earlier that rhetoric as it relates to homeland security flies fast and furious, and indeed it does, and I guess that is just reflective of what this process is and system is, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who is a great friend of mine and serves on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, just made some statements that I think are great examples of that rhetoric flying fast and furious. And if the motivation is derived from frustration that we want to do more and we want to do it sooner, because indeed we do want to protect every American citizen, then I applaud him, and I think in large part that is true. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think in large part it is not true. It is not true because it belies many of the facts that many of us have seen both on this important committee and on the Select Committee on Homeland Security as it relates to what we can do today, what technology indeed exists. And the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) makes the point that if every American passenger has to pass through a metal detector on their way to an airplane, that we ought to be sending cargo through that metal detector as a means of securing that some sort of explosive device does not exist, and that is not true. That technology, those machines, the technology applied to current passengers is distinctly different than what is needed to ensure that cargo transportation is fully inspected. The best known package system being used now currently is the best process we have available. This bill is an important bill to support because we put in it funding that specifically moves forward the process to develop the kinds of technology that will get us where we all want to be, and to say that we can simply do that today by spending more money is incorrect and misleading, and I do not think it is a service to what we really want to accomplish here. If indeed we say those things to motivate DHS, the Federal Government and this government to get its priorities more focused, then that is a good thing, but let us not mislead the American people as we do that.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill in order to maintain the integrity of progress in developing a system of homeland security. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act particularly does so by ensuring that in the future, when our national capacities reach requisite levels, we will be able to meet national needs and secure the requisite funding. It has been said fast and furious rhetoric surrounds homeland security issues. I agree. It has been further stated by some that actions do not match their words. Let me suggest the disagreement is not over whether or not we should do more. I think we all agree moving forward is important. We disagree in what is doable now. Mr. Speaker, how do we best do this while ensuring that the credibility of those expenditures are such that, as we go forward, the American people can have confidence that we are meeting the needs of our Nation in a thoughtful, capable and complete manner; without simple rhetoric, and thus without increasing waste, fraud and miscalculation? We need better planning and response. Some Democrats have said more money is needed for first responders. The fact is we do not know the right amount or the requisite need separated from normal expenses. Further, already over $20 billion has already been invested in homeland security. Before we invest more, I contend we first create a formula based on threat, vulnerability and consequences to allocate the funds properly. The City of New York spends $13.5 million dollars a week, $700 million a year, on extra police protection during its current state of alert. That amounts to more than $1 billion since 9/11. I am talking about the net, additional amount that New York spends to protect against terrorist attacks. One of the principle reasons many of the terrorism prevention needs are not met by many cities is because of the outdated formula applied to the vast majority of first responder funds. The President supports a threat-based distribution of first responder funds in his National Strategy for Homeland Security, and I know from conversations I had with Homeland Security Secretary Ridge, that he also supports this approach. I hope this Congress moves quickly to enact a new threat-based formula to apply to first responders. I introduced H.R. 2512, a bill to reform the first responder formula to reflect today's reality. H.R. 2512 would lessen the impact of allocating funds based on geography in favor of a quantitative assessment of threat information, vulnerability, and consequences. We are dealing with serious people and we need a serious formula. I know the war in Iraq is over and the threat level has decreased since then, but we must remain vigilant in our fight against terrorism, particularly in New York. One hundred percent screening of cargo containers is also unattainable regardless of what we spend at this time. Mr. Speaker, we are all frustrated and want to move forward. We have to do so in a reasonable manner, not just blindly throwing money at the problem. I would like to remind every one that the other body took over one year ago to approve the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security. I am confident this bill represents the next best step and urge everyone's support.

Mr. SWEENEY

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

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to thank him for participating in this colloquy with me today to address a significant issue which was raised during the committee consideration of this bill. As the gentleman knows, when the committee marked up the Treasury- Transportation bill in July, we directed the General Services Administration to complete its review of MCI WorldCom's fitness to serve as a Federal contractor. This directive resulted from revelations that the company had overstated its profits by $11 billion and lacked adequate internal controls. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the GSA announced the proposed debarment of MCI WorldCom on July 31. Although the process took longer than hoped and the committee was forced to take action to get GSA to do its job, the GSA has now prohibited MCI WorldCom from receiving any new Federal contracts. GSA has reached the only responsible conclusion possible. Mr. Chairman, it is my strong belief that the Federal Government must condemn corporate malfeasance and provide strict oversight of Federal contracting. GSA's proposed action to debar MCI from Federal contracting is a step in the right direction, and I applaud their efforts. With the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), this committee has ensured GSA performs its due diligence and has protected the American taxpayers from a fraudulent company. I would like to personally thank the gentleman for his support and assistance.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman. As this process continues, GSA must remain responsive and should provide regular detailed reports to the committee on the status of the case. Would the gentleman agree to work with me during the conference to clarify the report language, if necessary, so that the committee can continue its oversight of GSA actions on the MCI WorldCom debarment proceedings and further Federal contracting actions?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will continue to monitor the GSA's actions in this area as the Treasury-Transportation measure moves to conference. If there is any backsliding by the agency, I am confident the committee will be able to respond.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I thank the chairman for recognizing me and want to rise in opposition to my good friend and classmate the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) amendment and preemptively rise in support of my other good friend and State mate the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Quinn) amendment that he will offer later on restoring full funding to the Amtrak system. In doing so, I want to point out that we have had this debate in Congress for a decade at least, that it is almost unreasonable to expect that this transportation appropriation bill is going to be the bill, the vehicle in which we are going to be able to solve the many problems that we have in Amtrak; but in doing so, I want to recognize the diligence of my chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) who worked and strove diligently throughout this process. As we marked up the bill in the subcommittee, the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), pointed out that a number of us voted to support this bill so we could push it along the process and get it into the full committee and now on to the floor to talk about the intricacies and the many problems facing Amtrak today. I support the notion that we restored to $900 million a portion of the White House's recommended portion of the funding but recognize that we are woefully short and recognize that this is a vital national interest with which we must soon address its needs, and in failing to do so, we further put at risk the viability of a system that, as was pointed out by a speaker before, served us ably and importantly and critically at a time when the airline industry could not. It has served us in the past when other means of transportation could not. I want to go to the core of the Amtrak question, and that is the northeast corridor, and say simply that it faces imminent threat in terms of its reliability and utility, because as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) points out, I believe this Congress has undertaken a methodology in which we simply ensure its failure rather than its success if we continue to defer investment, and we risk losing service between Boston and Washington, which is at the hub of that core of service, if any service disruptions in Amtrak are experienced. The northeast corridor is critical to our Nation and it is the heaviest traveled railroad in North America. It is not a simple luxury for many people. In fact, 1,700 trains operate over some portion of the Washington-to-Boston route each day in this Nation, providing people the opportunity to work, providing people the opportunity to carry on the business of this Nation and go to the places they need to go. As the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out, the northeast corridor carries more from New York to Washington each day than both airlines in providing their shuttle service, combined, do. Pretty critical service that it provides. It carries more than 35,000 people a day, the entire corridor, and the Northeast is the only area in which Amtrak runs trains and owns tracks and I think provides us the greatest opportunity to build from within that railroad's experience. As it relates to the notion that this is somehow pork, I want to point out to my good friend and others that this Congress has not been hesitant to subsidize private entities like airlines, has not been hesitant, as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out, to provide other infrastructure subsidies throughout the system, and that to decide arbitrarily or subjectively that while Amtrak may not serve portions of the Nation, it is therefore not in the national interest, is simply wrong. I want to again thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), and involve my support for his amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I had no intention of coming to the floor and speaking on this rule. I am a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and I assume there will be plenty of time this afternoon for me to give my appropriate comments. But I have to just say to my colleagues that I am quite frustrated. I am a New Yorker, I am an American, and I lost friends in the World Trade Center on September 11. What I would like to say to my friends on the other side is, let us move on. Let us not use any more distractions in this process. We waited a year, a year, to create the Department of Homeland Security because the other body, in its leadership from the Democratic Party, decided a year ago that they would rather play politics than go to the business of the people and go to the business of creating this Department of Homeland Security. I listened to the esteemed ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on the floor a little while ago. And I have to say that I have great disagreement on policy, but I appreciate and respect the fact that he is coming to this floor and talking about the substance of this bill and the issue facing the American people on this most critical issue. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friends, and implore upon my friends to allow us to move on and let us do the business of the people. That is what leadership is about, and that is what they expect of us.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to especially thank the chairman of the subcommittee for all his great work. This is not just about the merging of 22 Federal agencies into one. This is not just about responding to the needs of first responders. This is not just about establishing a system that not only helps first responders but creates a system of first preventers. This has really been a monumental task undertaken to give direction to an entity, a notion, a thought about protecting the American people here at the homeland, something prior to September 11, 2001 we did not give a lot of time to and that goes well beyond anything this government has ever done. This is about first responders, this is about border security, this is about aviation and port security, it is about a BioShield program, and it is about the four corners of defense. I want to take my 1 minute to especially tell the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), how thankful I am as a New Yorker, as an American citizen, as someone who lost friends and neighbors in the attack of September 11, for the commitment that he is honoring that we all made on September 11, 2001, for the great work that he has put into this, and for the fact that I feel greatly confident that as we go forward and need to make adjustments as this process evolves, that we have the right person in place at the subcommittee level.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I intend to do just that, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy as well with the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. The chairman, who I have had the pleasure of working with, has done a great job, as I said before on this bill, and I thank the gentleman for the inclusion of high threat funds in this particular bill and actually for having created the fund in the first instance. But I wish to highlight some concerns I have with the current distribution formula. The City of New York spends $13.5 million a week, $700 million a year on extra police protection during its current state of alert. That amounts to more than $1 billion since September 11. And I am not talking about money that the city would spend anyway for police protection. I am talking about the net additional amount New York spends to protect against terrorist attacks. New York's needs were highlighted as recently as last week when news of an al-Qaeda operative was arrested for plotting to sever the cables on the Brooklyn Bridge. The operative said one of the main foils to his plan was the added security around the bridge which prevented him from acting. One of the reasons terrorist prevention needs are not met by some cities is because of the formula the Department uses to distribute funds. I know this is an authorizing issue more than an appropriations issue, but no first responder discussion is complete without recognizing the current formulas, which do not provide enough emphasis on the threat information. The President and the administration at times have said they support a threat-based distribution of first responder funds in this national strategy for homeland security, and it is my hope this Congress moves quickly to enact a new threat-based formula to apply to first responders. I recently introduced a bill to reform the first responder formula to reflect today's realities, and that bill would lessen the impact of allocating funds based on geography in favor of a quantitative assessment of threat information, vulnerability and consequences. We are dealing with serious people and we need a serious formula. I know the war in Iraq is over, to whatever degree, and the national threat level has decreased since then, but last week's news stories prove we must remain vigilant in our fight against terrorism, particularly in New York, and I cannot stress strongly enough the need for focusing first responder funds on high-threat areas. It is no secret where the terrorists are focusing their resources, and I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky how he can address the concerns I outlined if the gentlewoman from New York will yield time to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am going to probably not take the full 5 minutes because, in part, I am going to reiterate some things that have already been said here on the floor: in part, the colloquy that the chairman of the subcommittee engaged in and, in part, in reflection of the last two amendments in particular, which I think point out the real difficult task this subcommittee, this chairman, and the ranking member faced in the course of putting together this plan. In stating the obvious, I will agree with the ranking member of the overall committee. It is quite clear that there apparently has been a change at the administration; that the current plan or the current structure of the plan that was sent forward has changed significantly, certainly overnight, and it is somewhat reflective in the fact that my colleagues in the New York delegation have come to the floor and have argued vehemently. But they are not new to that argument. We have all been making the case that we are not quite sure whether there is enough money in high-risk, high-density funding in this particular program. But I can tell my colleagues that not anyone, Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber, in this House, and in this Nation can tell us whether we have appropriated enough at this point in time. That is exactly the point, exactly the point that I think the chairman of the subcommittee has been making. Given the information we have now, given the money that has been appropriated and flowed out, given what we know in terms of the expenses, and we talked about it in that colloquy earlier, we are trying to meet those needs, that this House has recognized that needs exist in specific areas that rise to a certain level above what the rest of the community is, and that it is somewhat grossly unfair for us to have to make those determinations on where exactly all of this goes, taking possibly from one area unequally and giving to another area. But it is absurd to make the point or argue that there is not enough money there. We have appropriated billions and billions of dollars, and what we see here in place is a work in progress. I would say to my friends from New York especially, but to those from other parts of the country who have introduced the last couple of amendments who would like to see us take from one fund to the other, that that is not the appropriate course at this time, given the information that we have. I actually trust the notion that when we go to conference, the very people who created the high-risk, high-density fund, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), this subcommittee, are in the best place to determine what that appropriate funding is going to be; and I have every bit of confidence that we are going to be able to meet that need. There has been an acknowledgment on this floor by the chairman, by this committee, that the work is incomplete; that there are needs that are going to be met. It is not just here in high-risk; it is in a lot of other places. But given the opportunity to examine that, I hear the call from the chairman, and I have every bit of confidence that we are going to be able to do that, equally covering the needs of the rest of the communities in our Nation to ensure the safety of the American people.

Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to actually speak on the underlying bill and the rule in support of both of those, and, as well, if I could take the opportunity to speak against one of the amendments. I am from New York's 20th Congressional District, the home of Saratoga, New York. We like to say it is the home of horse racing. It certainly is the home of the oldest flat track in the Nation, the proud home of Funny Cide, the winner of the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. While we are a little less jubilant today than we were, maybe, a couple of days ago, we are still very bullish on the whole idea and the whole horse racing industry. I am also the cochairman of the Congressional Horse Caucus. I want to talk a little bit about how important this rule is and this underlying bill is to horse racing and the horse racing industry. U.S. horse racing is regulated by Federal and State laws. It is in fact the most highly regulated form of entertainment sports initiative in this Nation. The specific concerns expressed by many in this Congress about offshore international wagering, the integrity of operators, the identity of the participants, consumer fraud, and money laundering are not an issue as it relates to horse racing. Horse racing is a $34 billion domestic industry, along with the agribusinesses that it supports. It is critically important not just to the economy of my district but through vast regions throughout the Nation. The underlying bill respects existing Federal and State gambling law. It does not make any unlawful gambling lawful; it does not make any lawful gambling unlawful. It does not override any State prohibitions or requirements. It does not expand or contract wagering. It simply maintains the status quo with respect to the underlying substantive law on gaming. There will be an amendment later today brought forward sponsored by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conyers) that would prohibit State license activities and represents a broad overuse and abuse of Federal power. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for bringing this rule forward. I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for recognizing the importance of this underlying legislation and how important, critically important, it is to vast areas throughout the Nation. I want to ask my colleagues to support both this rule and to support the underlying legislation and oppose the so-called Sensenbrenner- Cannon-Conyers amendment.