Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 4 years ago, fanatic Islamic terrorists attacked our country, hijacked our planes, rammed the Pentagon, and destroyed the World Trade Center that was located in my district. This is deadly serious business, and we do not have a dime to waste. This bill, while certainly an improvement over current law, still includes State-based formula funding.

I offered an amendment to eliminate the State minimum section of the bill to ensure that all homeland security funding is distributed on the basis of risk. Unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order by this restrictive rule. I am saddened that there are still people in this House who still do not get it. How many times do we have to run for our lives before we realize this is not a game? We face the serious threat of terrorism, and we should allocate the homeland security funding based on that threat.

I understand this bill is a delicate political compromise. On the whole, I support it because it is better than current law. But we can do better.

State minimums waste homeland security funding. This bill would give States money that cannot be justified on the basis of the risk, wasting precious resources that should be used to protect the American people from real dangers in other States.

In this wonderful, open, rich, free society in which we live, there are plenty of real targets that need protecting all across America. The issue of State minimums is not just about New York. If there are real threats to our food supply, our energy resources, our national monuments, they should all be protected. But we should not give more money to States who cannot demonstrate a need while we know there are other States that have needs that cannot be met. It just does not make sense.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended that anti-terrorism funding be distributed based on risk and not based on State formulas or pork-barrel spending. We should follow their excellent advice. The State minimum provision in this bill is in direct violation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In its report, it said that, Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' The commission went on to say that ``Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement State and local resources based on the risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as pork barrel.''

My amendment would have stricken these State minimums and distributed these grants in a manner that addresses the highest priority threats and vulnerabilities of the Nation. There are very real and known terrorist threats against specific targets in the country, and these homeland security grant programs were created specifically to address these threats. Distributing terrorism response funding without regard to risk is not wise. It is not cost effective. It is not in the best interests of our country's security. These resources should go where they are needed, where there is the greatest threat of terrorism. Period.

As noted in the 9/11 Commission's report, ``Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.'' I had hoped that the Rules Committee would have followed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and made my amendment in order.

   Nevertheless, I am pleased that the State minimum section in this bill is a significant improvement over current law by being much smaller, and I hope that when we enter into conference with the other body, we remain firm and fight to keep State minimums at the lowest possible level so that the risk-based funds can be kept at the highest level to fight the real threat of terrorism in our country.