John Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, it is important that I give voice to the important issue of stem cell research. This is not an issue that anyone takes lightly. Life is precious in all forms, and it is important to do all that we can to ensure issues surrounding life and quality of life are given the highest priority. Millions of Americans suffer from debilitating diseases like Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and a host of other diseases that reduce the quality of life or cause loss of life. Stem cells derived from embryos have shown tremendous promise in the fight to rid society of many of these diseases. In 2003 alone there were 1,681,339 deaths from diseases that could benefit from this research. Many couples across America struggling to have children benefit from In Vitro Fertilization, a process where embryos are created to provide couples with the potential to have children. In many cases, couples have left over embryos that would be destroyed. This legislation simply provides the opportunity for those embryos to save lives already being lived. Lives being lived by people like Tambrie Alden from Glens Falls, NY. Tambrie has had Juvenile Diabetes for 28 years. She goes through 10 daily finger sticks a day and has worn an insulin pump for 10 years. Each day brings a different battle for Tambrie; she must constantly monitor the highs and lows of her condition. Tambrie has had over 200 laser eye surgeries due to Juvenile Diabetes, which also continues to attack her organs ability to function properly. On Sunday, Tambrie turns 47. She celebrates every birthday to the fullest, because when she was diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes, the doctors told her she would not live past 43. Tambrie lives on borrowed time and worries about losing her sight and not being able to see her grandchildren grow up. She knows that embryonic stem cell research probably won't help her, but she prays the promise it holds will ensure that her grandchildren don't have to suffer as she has. That's why we are here today, to make sure that people like Tambrie can live their lives to the fullest. This action is limited to promoting responsible research with embryos that would be destroyed otherwise. Congressional oversight on this ethically sensitive issue is the right balance to ensure that our nation remains diligent in our approach to medical research, while taking important steps to improve the quality of life for those who suffer from debilitating diseases. The bill establishes strict standards for use of fertility clinic embryos. First, written permission is required of the couple donating the embryo. Second, there can be no financial compensation, much like organ donation. Finally, the legislation requires the National Institutes of Health to establish strict oversight for the scientific community to ensure ethical guidelines are adhered to. Embryonic stem cell research is a new form of research in the early stages. I am fundamentally opposed to cloning embryos or creating embryos for scientific research. This legislation does not a ow cloning, it merely ensures that embryos already created and unused serve a higher purpose than being destroyed.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee in a colloquy dealing with some language in the committee report requiring the EPA to fund a National Academy of Science study. Mr. Chairman, we have already heard that there is language requiring such a study to determine the effectiveness and cost of a large dredging operation of hazardous waste sites, many of which are contaminated with PCBs. I would point out that our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who engaged in a colloquy a little earlier, stated that there was strong support for this project. Well, this is a project that has been debated for 20 years. In some ways that is an overstatement of that support. I represent the affected area, and in fact it has been an extremely difficult process for my constituents. However, we all agree that further delay of the project is in no one's best interest. As you have already clarified, the report language, Mr. Chairman, in no way is intended to delay, stop or otherwise disrupt the cleanup planned for the Hudson River slated to begin in the summer of 12006. Further, the EPA has reviewed the language and found no provision that would require them to disrupt the Hudson River project in any way. Is that your understanding, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that kind offer and clarification. Let me just say that it has long been my position that we should not debate past decisions no the Hudson River but look to the future in the region and focus on protecting those communities most directly affected by the cleanup project. What has been consistently overlooked is the fact that dredging will have a heavy impact on people's everyday lives. This is especially true for the residents of Fort Edward, New York, who will be hosting the dewatering site in their community. As the representative of that area, I want to continue to strive to uphold their interests and remind others that we are talking about real people and real neighborhoods, and not just political points for some special interest groups. For that reason, I want to thank you for a separate report language provision which was inserted at my request to address the burden the Hudson River cleanup project is placing on the people of Fort Edwards and reiterate my concern that the EPA do all it can to provide assistance to the town. It is my hope that we can jointly work towards that end and meet that important goal as the appropriation process continues.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to get briefly to the point. We can all have our differences as it relates to this issue, but as my colleagues have pointed out so appropriately, surreptitiously last year, snuck into the omnibus bill, is a piece of legislation that many of us have disagreement over. We all agree in this appropriation process that that is not the way Congress ought to go about doing its business and, worse yet, that legislation overturned decades, indeed generations of Congressional policy. Now, we can argue the substance and the differences as to whether this is economically feasible and right, and whether this is humane or not, but the fact of the matter is it was surreptitiously snuck in, it ought not to have happened, I believe it violates policy for more than a generation and 30 to 40 years of Congressional intent. We ought not to let that happen. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, Saturday, April 9, 2005 marks a tragic one- year anniversary for Army Specialist Keith ``Matt'' Maupin and America. Spc. Maupin, better known as Matt to his friends, went missing one year ago and is the only American soldier to be unaccounted for. His courage and valor are unquestioned and our prayers are with his family and friends as they wait daily for word on his whereabouts. The community of Batavia, OH has not forgotten their brave soldier, but we must all remember Matt and pray for his safe return. Our brave men and women fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the world sacrifice so much. Beyond their own personal safety, they also sacrifice seeing their wives, husbands, parents and friends. They miss their children's first steps, soccer games and special moments. There is no way to repay the debt we owe them. But we can do the next best thing and honor them through actions. Tell them and their families how grateful we are for their sacrifice and most importantly, bring all of our troops home. On Saturday, April 9, 2005 lets take a moment to remember Spc. Maupin and all of our American heroes.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) be removed as cosponsors of H.R. 227. I am the sponsor of H.R. 227, and their names were added in error.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in support of this resolution, a very important resolution introduced by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers). I think we are at a critical period of time in this Nation's history, and it comes a couple of days after one of the more significant, what you would call victories or symbols of what the American military presence is about and what its results are. That is, that we pride ourselves in having the best educated, the best trained, the best quality of people serving in all sorts of branches, in all sorts of jobs in the United States military; and at a time when the world needs this the most from us, it is very important that we maintain that quality. I heard the prior speaker talk about the fact that this may be a dangerous place and there are all sorts of other political ideas that may be at play where you could put a recruiter on a campus or not. What I would simply say is that that is not the same argument as here. This is an argument of fairness and equity. It is an argument that says that just because somebody's political philosophy is counter to the idea that we want to have a strong military presence in this Nation, those school administrators, who I think are way off the board in terms of their left-wing views and their antimilitary approach, ought not to be able to ban college military recruiters from doing their job because it is in the national interest that we do it. It is really in the world's interest. So I am here to support this resolution and say that what the Third Circuit did last November again represents the judiciary trying to legislate where it ought not to do it. My predecessor, Gerry Solomon, first introduced this amendment many years back. It was that amendment that has been struck down. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and recognizing that what we do for the private sector in allowing them to put recruiters in law schools or on any college campus ought to be the same that we do for something so important and so critical as the recruitment of the best and the brightest into our military forces. I urge all of my colleagues to strongly support this resolution.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an organization that has provided compassionate and dedicated service to children and families in New York for over 175 years. The Parsons Child and Family Center and their hardworking staff currently serve more than 7,000 children and their families, by providing residential and foster care services and by specializing in special education prevention and mental health services. The mission of the Parsons Child and Family Center has evolved over time. Starting as a foster home for destitute children, this organization's primary goal today is the preservation of families. It has become a treatment-oriented institution offering intensive, therapeutic services to emotionally disturbed children. The Parsons Child and Family Center recognizes the vital role that a family plays in the upbringing of our children, and it does all it can to prevent the need for foster care placement. After a period of rehabilitation, the Parsons Child and Family Center endeavors to return these children to their families and communities as soon as possible. The Parsons Center provides invaluable services to countless children and families across New York State, children in dire need of special care and assistance. The tireless and selfless work of organizations like the Parsons Child and Family Center constitutes the foundation of our nation's communities and embodies the true spirit of the United States. America's greatness is found in ordinary citizens performing extraordinary acts of kindness. The Parsons Child and Family Center is due recognition for their work with the American family. We should honor the devoted staff of this organization, not only for the lives they touch and the families they heal, but for the example they set for us all. I ask my fellow members of the House of Representatives to send our gratitude to the Parsons Child and Family Center for its most praiseworthy work.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an extraordinary citizen. Carol Hotaling of Saratoga County, New York, along with help from friends and family, has devoted an immeasurable amount of time and effort to support our troops and has strove to promote unity in our great Nation. Ms. Hotaling has shown her ability to bring together communities in support of our troops. She has worked tirelessly to distribute hundreds of yellow ribbons to citizens around the state in recognition of our service men and women. These ribbons help foster a spirit of unity and help convey respect and support for those who protect our freedom. In recognition of Ms. Hotaling's continued work and support, the State of New York designated September 2004 ``Tie a Yellow Ribbon Month''. To help encourage all citizens to follow the example of Ms. Hotaling and to express their appreciation for the nation's armed forces, New York State has shown its encouragement for the continued display and distribution of yellow ribbons. At this time, it is important that we honor individuals for fostering support and practices in tribute to the nation's armed forces. The actions of those, such as Ms. Hotaling, serve as examples to the citizenry of the United States. I ask that the House of Representatives send its gratitude to Carol Hotaling for her praiseworthy work.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an extraordinary citizen. Sally Mazzarella, of Rhinebeck, New York, along with help from friends and family, has devoted an immeasurable amount of time and effort to make her community and Dutchess County a better place to live. Sally has exemplified selfless and tireless community leadership. She is president of the Winnakee Land Trust and serves on the boards of Families First New York and the Center for Performing Arts at Rhinebeck. In the past, Sally has served on the boards of the United Way of Dutchess County, Family and Services Inc., Hudson Valley Philharmonic, and Dutchess Housing Partnership. Since 1990, Sally has worked alongside State Senator Stephen Saland as a Constituent Services Representative working to solve the problems facing the 41st Senate District of NY. Sally recently served as chairwoman of leadership gifts for the $2.2 million expansion project for the Starr Library. She has co-chaired the YWCA's $2 million capital campaign renovation project and the Mid- Hudson Children's Museum $2.8 million acquisition project. Sally is also chairwoman of the Rhinebeck Comprehensive Plan Revision Project, a community-wide planning initiative focusing on Rhinebeck's future. Sally has also served as chairwoman of the Town of Rhinebeck Planning Board. She has been an active member of the New York State Planning Federation and the Dutchess County Planning Federation, as a member of Hudson River Shorelines Task Force. Sally also served as a representative of the Chairman of the Dutchess County Legislature on the Hudson Valley Regional Council. In recognition of Sally's continued work and service to her community, the Community Foundation of Dutchess County has recently honored Sally, as have many other organizations throughout the region over the years. Sally's tireless and dedicated service demonstrates the essence of what it means to be a citizen. People like Sally across the nation form the fabric of our society. At this time, it is important we honor such individuals for their devoted and generous work, leadership, and service on behalf of their communities. As evidenced by Sally's achievements, it is people like her that make our communities better places to live.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 106(a)) any foreign accounting firm that audits an issuer of securities in the United States capital markets shall be subject to the same regulatory framework applicable to domestic accounting firms. The Act requires that foreign audit firms must adhere to the same rigorous standards applicable to domestic firms. Sarbanes-Oxley also established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and directs them to conduct a continuing program of inspections of registered public accounting firms and to investigate alleged violations of the Act, related securities laws, and auditing and related professional practice standards. The PCAOB recently approved rules under which non-U.S. regulators would be permitted to fulfill the inspection and enforcement mission of the PCAOB if the non-U.S. regulator is judged by the PCAOB to be sufficiently independent and rigorous. What concerns me is that the PCAOB might allow the Canadian Public Accountability Board to fulfill this mission. This would be a serious mistake. The PCAOB in looking at its own structure and mission identified five factors as bearing upon the independence and rigor of the non-U.S. regulatory systems: (1) The adequacy and integrity of the non-U.S. system; (2) the system's source of funding; (3) the system's independence from the accounting profession; (4) the system's transparency; and (5) historical performance. The first looks at the system's authority to inspect, investigate, sanction and enforce professional standards of the accounting profession. The second assesses the accounting profession's authority over the governance and operation of the non-U.S. regulatory system. How many accountants have decision making authority? Are they appointed by government? Does the government or the accounting profession hold removal power? The third implicates the accounting profession's control over the system's source of funds. The fourth on transparency requires open rule making procedures and periodic reporting to the public. With respect to historical performance--if the system is new the PCAOB will not consider this factor. Consequently, any decision by the PCAOB to rely on a specific non- U.S. regulator should require that they pass these minimum tests. The Canadian Public Accountability Board fails these tests. The Canadian Public Accountability Board has no direct statutory authority. It has no oversight mechanism, no transparency, and no public interest accountability. It is subject to the whims of its membership and its governing structure is comprised primarily of accountants. Most importantly, the source of funding for the Canadian Public Accountability Board is in fact the accounting industry itself. As the PCAOB moves toward granting reciprocity to foreign organizations to help enforce Sarbanes-Oxley the Congress will be watching to make certain that the interests of the American investors and the integrity of the U.S. financial sector are protected.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to say goodbye to two of my mentors and friends, Congressmen Quinn and Houghton. When I first came to Washington, you both helped me find my way and helped me learn the ropes in the Congress. For that, I owe you both an enormous debt of gratitude. Jack, you taught me that it is possible to strike a balance between Republican values and labor's needs. Essentially, how to be a New York Republican in Congress. Since you've been here, you've always had the ability to distinguish between the political and the pragmatic, and you've built your reputation as a voice of reason in this sometimes-unreasonable world. Your constituents always came first, and if your successor can serve the twenty-seventh district of our great state of New York remotely as well as you have, they will be in good hands. Well done, my friend. Congressman Houghton, you sir, are the epitome of the American statesman. Frankly, your many accomplishments speak for themselves, and your long and distinguished record both in business and in government guarantees you a place in the Pantheon of New York's public servants. You have much to be proud of, but I suspect your finest hour came with passage of the Liberty Zone Act, which provided billions to help our fellow New Yorkers in Manhattan rebuild from the rubble of the 9/11 attacks. For that, all New Yorkers owe you their sincere thanks. Amo, Jack, I wish you nothing but the best as you leave the Congress today, having done a great service to America. Your constituents thank you, our Nation thanks you, and as you return home, finally able to spend more time with your beloved families, I wish to convey the thanks of the family you're leaving behind here in Washington. It has been a pleasure and an honor serving with both of you, and this is one tough New Yorker who's not afraid to say ``I'll miss you''. Farewell, old friends.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I realize we all are on our way out of town, and it is important we get moving, so I will be very brief and I will attempt not to be too provocative. But I urge the membership to strongly support this piece of legislation for a couple of very important reasons. One, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) pointed out, FEMA money is running out and, as well, if we think about that in terms of what we need to do to make sure that we continue the momentum towards developing a safer, more secure homeland security, this bill needs to get done before we break for the election. I recognize that there are a lot of tough choices here. I recognize that there are a lot of disagreements over where exactly we ought to be prioritizing the expenditures here, but I view this as an evolving, accommodating balance. I want to salute the chairman of the subcommittee for his great work here. We have had our disagreements, but the chairman has always been there, and he has moved this bill substantially towards a system that I think can evolve into a system that allows the Federal Government to respond to the threats where they most exist. We can bemoan what is left to be done, but this bill actually goes out and begins to take and continues to take substantial strides towards getting us to the place we need to be. We need to recognize that either structurally or technically or, frankly, politically in this town we may not be ready to do all the things we need to do, but this bill moves us way along the line. I want to salute the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for that, as well the ranking member on the subcommittee. We do not agree on the first responders money as well, but this bill does important things. And as one who comes from New York, a place that was attacked, this bill needs to get passed so that New York can continue to do the great work it does to protect this Nation and that city.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. In the brief time that I have, I briefly want to say a couple of things. One, this bill is important for a lot of structural reasons, and if we think about the fact that we have, in Congress, not done such a great job, dating back to the 1970s, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) pointed out earlier. This is a huge and significant step. So for those out there who say we still need to do more, or we have some disagreements and we need to get it right, I would say this. I think this bill strikes a perfect balance at this particular time, and I have every bit of confidence that the new chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence will be able to get us to exact point that we all can agree on and where we all want to be. Some would argue let us centralize it more; some would argue let us give it more power. Others on the other side say it is another bit of bureaucracy and we do not need it at all. I will say this simply. Deciding to establish a national intelligence director and establishing a National Counterterrorism Center will end the buck-passing that has occurred all too often around here. I think it is a bold and significant stroke. I think it is the right balance at this point, and I also would point out for first responders that in this bill, this Congress takes its first steps forward to making those fundings risk-based. I salute the chairman for that.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today in support of this legislation, in support of the effort here to honor one of the really great citizens of this Nation and certainly of our area. When my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. McNulty) asked me to cosponsor this bill and to come and speak on it, I was truly touched and honored by the opportunity. This is probably one of the more important things that I will do in my tenure here, because, Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant John Finn, while not from my district, from a district adjacent to my district, certainly touched, saved, and protected the lives of many of my constituents; and his passing was a deep, deep tragedy felt by all of the people of my district and I think indeed all of the people of this Nation. That is why this is such an appropriate response by this body, and I am proud to be part of it. John Finn was a model citizen, a loving father, a doting husband, and a wonderful human being. He was, frankly, the person we would want all our children to be. He was the kind of person we would want to recognize as a great American. I remember in the area, we had a memorial service shortly after his passing and his family, his wife, Maura McNulty-Finn, handled that process and the loss of John Finn in the community with such grace and such dignity and really won the respect of the entire community, and his daughters, Clara and Molly, two beautiful little girls, really touched the heartstrings of all of the people who recognized the loss that they were realizing and will realize for the rest of their lives. John Finn was an officer of the law who took his job incredibly seriously, winning numerous awards for saving lives and constantly upholding his duties to those he swore to protect. Unfortunately, Lieutenant Finn, like far too many of our Nation's police officers, was killed in the line of duty. He was cut down in the prime of his life while doing his job, a job he did far better than most. He was killed because he made a choice on the night of December 23, yes, December 23, 2 days before Christmas of last year. Instead of backing down and living to fight another day, he chose to face danger head-on when he walked into that convenience store and into a hail of bullets. On that night, trying to stop a robbery, he joined the company of untold American heroes who gave the ultimate sacrifice so others may be saved. Lieutenant Finn died protecting others and upholding a code he chose to live by. He chose to live his life to the end with honor and bravery, and that is something our constituents and our government will never be able to repay. We can, however, show our appreciation and honor his memory by naming the Lieutenant John F. Finn Post Office Building. We owe it to his family and his loved ones. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we owe it to ourselves. Mr. Speaker, when I attended Lieutenant Finn's funeral service, I was moved by the thousands from the area and from other States who filled an arena in Albany to pay their last respects to such a fine man. Today we are giving something back. I am really privileged to be part of it.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the chairman for all of his work, and let me just say, this is a tough, tough bit of work we have to do, an important debate, and we have one of the best at the helm, leading us in it.

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

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in general support. I really want to acknowledge the very difficult and great work by the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, and as a member of this subcommittee, as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, this is a tough, tough, tough piece of work to put together, and I rise to acknowledge that. Everybody knows where I come from. I come from the State that absorbed one of the greatest hits in the history of this country. So there are real challenges here that have real life consequences. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is one who has gotten that, and I wanted to recognize and I think he in this bill has attempted to bring and indeed has brought as balanced an approach as we could expect in this process, and as he said, this is an evolving process, and we may have some honest disagreements among friends, but we are united on the general principles. This bill does do an awful lot of accomplishing some of the things that we need. I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman as well. I want to thank him for participating in that, and I want to address a significant issue related to the Department of Homeland Security. That is the geospatial management issue which is a critical tool in providing homeland security. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman's work, the committee's work and the administration in providing due attention to geospatial technologies. Satellite imagery, aerial photography and other geospatial technologies provide data to quickly visualize activity patterns, map location and provide information to conduct analyses to help prevent or lessen the impact from an emergency situation. Mr. Chairman, there is no single office in DHS responsible for geospatial management and, therefore, no corresponding budget. In the present structure, the geospatial information officer does not have the authority to compel DHS directorates to cooperate. Geospatial coordination will help end duplication of geospatial activities. A geospatial management office needs to be created and codified within DHS under the Chief Information Officer. I am pleased to see report language stating clear and concise policy direction is needed for geospatial information and technology efforts. Under the gentleman from Kentucky's (Chairman Rogers) leadership, this committee supports the Department's request of $5 million to create a Department-wide geographic information system capability under the direction of the Chief Information Officer. I would like to personally thank the gentleman for that and many other efforts in this bill and for the last several years and for his support and assistance.

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

Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers). As this process continues, I hope a geospatial information office is created, with a corresponding budget, at DHS. Would the gentleman agree to work with me during conference to strengthen report language to direct the Secretary to create the Office of Geospatial Management within the CIO's office to oversee the geospatial activities?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to as well applaud and acknowledge the work of the subcommittee chairman on this funding for the SAFER Act. It is something that we worked together with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and others through the subcommittee process, through the full committee markup. It is an important piece, an important effort. The $50 million is going to go a long way to maintain and preserve some essential services in some of the key and critical areas. And it was not an easy thing to do, and I think it is important. I am strongly in support of this. Last year Congress enacted a new authorization as part of fiscal year 2004 DOD, an authorization bill known as the SAFER Act. It provided funds to hire up to 75,000 new firefighters. These are people critically needed in important places. When I spoke earlier, Mr. Chairman, I talked about how balanced this was, how tough this bill was, how there were some really tough decisions in it, and this is a chairman who worked hard to find the right balances and find the right equities, and here is an instance where he did that, and I want to applaud him for that.

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

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

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to introduce two amendments tonight that I think go to the core of what is our fundamentally greatest challenge as it relates to protecting the homeland, and that is to provide a proper structure within which the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Government can properly and appropriately respond to the threats and risks that are presented out there unbiased, focused on the idea that the resources we have have to be directed to the places that are of greatest threat and at greatest risk. The first amendment that I attempted to offer would have changed the formula, a formula that is pre-September 11, a formula that provides funding to jurisdictions regardless of the risk and the threat that it faces. I will quote one of my colleagues, one of the great members of the committee. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) said this bill, this funding proposition is not about cost sharing with local and State governments because we cannot meet all of those needs. I agree with him. We cannot meet all of those needs. But this is about meeting the legitimate, precise and efficient needs of this Nation to protect its citizens. Our enemies, al Qaeda, the terrorist network, have something in common with us: They have finite resources, as do we. But one of the advantages that they have had is they are specifically targeted and are targeting their efforts to maximize the impact on the American people and the threat they present to us. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment in which we will transfer back to the President's budget number $446 million to the high threat fund that was established in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental. The reason we need to do that is because we are actually slipping over the last couple of years in terms of the funds that we are sending out to meet the needs in the communities that are our greatest threat. I will point to a couple of things. The national average per capita is $7.59; and, yet, jurisdictions like California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois all are below $6, all in the $5 range in terms of what funding they are receiving through the formulation. Now, we cannot vote on that particular part of activity in this amendment, but we can do something about it to give the Department itself the kind of flexibility and the Secretary the kind of flexibility he would need over the 2005 budget cycle to best protect the people of this Nation, and the Department is asking us to do this. I will point to the statement of administration policy just released earlier today, and I will quote from it: ``The administration believes that the programs funded through the Department of Homeland Security should be better targeted toward terrorism preparedness. The bill does not provide the request to double funding for the risk-based Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, program, but instead provides funding above the requested level for the basic State and local formula grant program.'' Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the next couple of years, certainly in the next year. I think we ought to give Tom Ridge and the Department what they need, what they have requested, what they need in the coming year in order to best ensure that this Nation is indeed protected. The net result of what we have established here in Congress over the last 3 years is a reduction. For example, I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) was on the floor earlier and talked about the needs of New York City. Let me say that New York City spends a billion dollars a year on security in counterterrorism intelligence; and, yes, they have received some money, $300 million to New York State, I think, in 2003; but do you know what they received last year, Mr. Chairman? $50 million, a 70 percent reduction from the year before. When James Comey came from the U.S. Attorney's office to talk about Jose Padilla the other day, it did not seem to me there was a 73 percent reduction in New York City. It seemed to me they are in the bull's eye, as are other jurisdictions; and we need to make sure that the Secretary and the Department have the appropriate tools to do their job. The President has asked us to do this. It is enacted in the President's budget. You can look on page 147 of that budget. You can read their statement. Secretary Ridge to the 9/11 commission and repeatedly to the Senate and to the House has asked for that kind of flexibility. We ought to be giving him that kind of flexibility. This Congress ought not to be micromanaging the Department of Homeland Security. I think most of us agree on that, but we ought to be providing them the proper tools and resources with which they can do their job. That is what this amendment proposes. It gives them what they have asked for in their budget, and I ask my fellow Members to support that.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman reminded me of two important points that I do not think have been stressed here, and I very briefly want to state them. One, it has been a misnomer by a number of Members who have come to the floor today pointing out that there is critical infrastructure throughout this Nation that needs to have security dollars addressed and directed towards it. This fund, the UASI fund, the high-threat fund includes all critical infrastructure. Point number two is that this is not about any region. This is not about New York. This is about the whole Nation. As my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), said earlier, this is about one family, not 50.