Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and others with whom we have consulted on trying to come up with a way to answer some of the fundamental questions. First of all, I think that we can be of agreement because, frankly, every Member, including the distinguished chairman and ranking member, have said that yes, the total number of dollars is probably not enough and this is going to be an ongoing process to see to it that we do allocate enough money to this because, frankly, we have no choice.
I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and others who have worked so hard to get that number as high as we can get it. There also, I believe, can be no other answer but yes to the question, do some areas have greater costs than others? Are there greater costs in ports of California, in States like New York? I will give Members an example. It is costing New York City $13 million a week to deal with the needs of homeland security. A week. If you drive over the Brooklyn Bridge at 3 o'clock in the morning on a weekday morning, you will find both lanes inside closest to the stanchion with a fixed patrol car sitting there all day, all night, because of the national security threat that exists. That is more police man-hours than many police departments, and that is something that New York is absorbing because of these risks.
Another question that is a little tougher to answer, but I know how I would answer it, is who should decide how homeland security funds get divided? Should it be my distinguished colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and those of us in this body, or should it be Secretary Ridge and the administration? I vote for the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota and others here in this body, but I think we should keep in mind what Secretary Ridge has said.
Secretary Ridge has said very clearly, in fact, just within the last 24 hours, that he believes that the present way we are distributing the money should be changed. He said ``distributing those dollars according to the old formula, I don't believe we get maximum security for the dollars that are expended at the national level.''
This is continuing the quote: ``I'd like to see the numbers significantly higher than $500 million.''
He goes on to say, ``I think every State should be given a certain amount of money,'' a sentiment that I agree with, ``but at the end of the day, I do believe that there are some communities and regions that need more money.''
Continuing the quote: ``I have concerns about the distribution formula, [where] We just basically send out dollars to States and localities on a formula that doesn't consider infrastructure, doesn't consider anything other than population.'' I do not believe that is where are we at this House, and frankly I do have great confidence in my colleagues deciding how to distribute the money, but we do have to recognize that this is not just a New York City issue, as the chairman alluded to previously. This is an issue that affects about 30 different States and localities all around the country. The gentleman from Texas articulated the needs of his district. Others have come to this floor and talked about their cities and States. The fact remains that there are certain places that unfortunately are more likely today to be targets of terrorist attack than others and have to take steps that cannot be avoided. If for no other reason, many of the trials that are being held of those that are accused of terrorism are being held in New York City. Just the enforcement costs in Washington, D.C. and suburban Virginia, in New York City, in Chicago, Illinois in one case, just those costs are much higher than they are elsewhere. There has been a large increase in the overall basic formula grant, and I think the committee deserves great credit for this. What this amendment seeks to do is take the $700 million that was allocated last year, increase the $500 million to that $700 million. That still provides a $700 million increase in the basic formula grant, and I believe that that is a healthy step.
I, however, want to say in closing, I want to close the way I began, I do believe that the chairman in his colloquy that he entered into earlier has clearly articulated his desire to get the money where it needs to go. I do believe that this is an amendment that gets the chairman and gets our House to that place.
