On the recordJune 1, 2011
I thank the gentleman for yielding. At the outset, let me say I am proud to vote for this rule because it is an open rule, and I commend the Speaker for doing this. It's really an important step forward, I believe, in the history of this House. Let me say also that, very reluctantly, in its current form, I will have to vote against final passage of this bill. I say this because we are at a stage now where the threat level, the homeland security threat level is the highest it's been since September 11. The killing of bin Laden has only made that worse. We know also from bin Laden's own records that he is aiming at maritime, he is aiming at mass transit, and he is aiming at our major cities. Yet we are cutting each of those programs by 50 percent, a fifty percent cut. Now, I can speak for New York in that I can tell you we have a thousand police officers. We have a Lower Manhattan security initiative. We have radiation detection. I can go through a whole list of programs. Every dollar in those programs can be accounted for. And I just cannot see why, at a time when the threat level is the highest it's been since September 11, that we are reducing Homeland Security grants by 50 percent. The Department was set up in the aftermath of September 11 to fight terror, yet those grants are being reduced. And I know there is anecdotal evidence that this program isn't working, that isn't working. I would say specify what's not working, but don't take a meat axe.…





