Honoring the life and work of Simon Wiesenthal and reaffirming the commitment of Congress to the fight against anti-Semitism and intolerance in all forms, in all forums, and in all nations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.

It is not so much what is in this bill; it is what is not in this bill. What we have here is a bill which does not, in fact, deal with all of the threats which are posed by al Qaeda.

Right now, across our country, it is harder to get into some night clubs in New York City than it is to get into chemical facilities across our country. There are 23 States that have over 100 facilities that could cause injuries or deaths to 1 million people. This bill still does not mandate armed guards at chemical facilities.

The nuclear power industry still does not have a permanent upgrade of the protections which are needed against an al Qaeda attack, even though we know that al Qaeda has nuclear power plants at the top of their terrorist target list.

Public transit. While $18 billion has been spent on airlines, only a small fraction of that has been spent on mass transit to protect against al Qaeda attacks, even though we have been warned in Madrid, warned in London, and even today, New York is in fear that there could be an attack on that city.

LNG: What the Republicans have done this year is they have told mayors they have no say over where LNG facilities would go. Governors have no say. And the Coast Guard has no say. Only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, dealing with the wish lists of the oil and gas industry, can decide where they go, but in the City of Boston and in dozens of cities across our country, they are going to have a homeland security nightmare trying to protect if al Qaeda attacked an LNG facility.

When it comes to hazardous material shipments, this majority Republican Party still refuses to have a mandate that there is a rerouting of those dangerous chemicals, the chlorines and the others that, if they were attacked, would cause catastrophic injuries in our country.

And in aviation, still only a small fraction of all of the cargo that goes on passenger planes in our country is inspected. So the people in our country must take off their shoes, put their computer through, their bags go through, all of it is screened, and they are sitting in the passenger section of the plane, and then underneath their feet will come all of this cargo that has not been screened.

This bill has only a very slight increase in its budget, but the budget itself does not determine whether or not we have good homeland security. This Republican majority still refuses to tell the chemical, the nuclear, the LNG, the hazardous material industry, the aviation industry that there is a regulatory black hole through which al Qaeda can come to attack the very list of targets that they put at the top of their terrorist target list. Not enough money and no mandates on the industry.

Mr. Speaker, catastrophe is bred by complacency, and that is what this bill is.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report we are considering today on the House Floor fails to close dangerous homeland security loopholes that continue to put Americans at risk more than 4 years after the 9/11 attacks.

Despite the urgent need to increase protections against terrorists determined to strike our country, serious vulnerabilities persist in a range of major areas:

Chemical plant security: More than 100 facilities in 23 States could threaten 1 million or more people if terrorists attacked the facility. There are no federal security requirements for chemical plants--the industry secures itself if it decides, on its own, to do so. ``60 Minutes'' did a segment where they literally walked right through an open front gate into a chemical plant outside downtown Pittsburgh. At one facility, the reporter climbed up onto a tank containing toxic material and shouted ``hello, I'm on your tank.'' There were no guards and no one tried to stop him. There are nightclubs in New York City that are harder to get into than some of our chemical plants.

Leaks of toxic chemicals can be devastating. In India in 1984, a leak at a chemical plant in Bhopal killed at least 4,000 people and injured hundreds of thousands more.

Transportation of extremely hazardous materials: Shipments of extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine routinely travel through

densely populated areas of our country. These shipments are mobile chemical weapons that often share the same track as urban passenger rail systems and could kill or injure 100,000 people within half an hour.

In a report released by the Teamsters Rail Conference last week that surveyed rail employees, 63 percent of those surveyed indicated that their train or equipment was delayed or left unattended for an extended period of time that day, and of those, 55 percent indicated that there were hazardous materials aboard that train.

LNG Security: One of Millennium Bomb plotters planning to attack Los Angeles International Airport was smuggled into the country on an LNG tanker docking in Everett, MA in my Congressional District. Terrorists may target LNG tankers and terminals, resulting in catastrophic consequences for surrounding communities. In 1979, my bill to require such remote siting was signed into law. But the Bush Administration is trying to undermine it, opening up the possibility an LNG plant would be placed, like a sitting duck, in the middle of an urban area, where an attack or accident would cause incredible devastation. Energy Bill signed into law in August 2005 froze out local officials from site decision-making process, so now convenience for energy companies, rather than security safeguards for surrounding community, will determine where facilities are built. Last month, I offered an amendment to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to require the involvement of the Coast Guard, which is part of the Homeland Security Department, in siting decisions. My amendment was defeated on the House Floor.

Republicans claim to support local control and the right of states to fend off federal encroachments. But when it comes to LNG siting, Republicans cut out mayors and governors and state homeland security officials from carrying out one of their most important responsibilities--protecting the public.

Aviation: Approximately 22 percent of all cargo transported by air in the United States is carried on passenger planes. This cargo consumes about half of the space in the cargo bay on a typical flight, and almost none of it is ever inspected! In the past, this cargo loophole has been exploited with deadly results, such as when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb hidden in unscreened baggage. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would support a requirement that 100 percent of the cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected, just as all checked bags, carry-on bags and passengers are currently inspected before boarding? He said ``No.''

Why should the booties of babies be scrutinized for bombs, but no one checks the cargo bound for the belly of a Boeing? The Bush administration says we should trust the shipper. But we must apply the Reagan Doctrine to cargo security--Trust, but verify.

Public transit: The attacks in London and Madrid clearly demonstrated our vulnerability to similar strikes against our transit systems here in the United States. Despite these wake-up calls, this conference report provides only slightly more funding than what is being provided today. Ranking Members Obey and Sabo offered amendments during the conference to increase funding for public transit security, but these amendments were defeated by the unanimous opposition from Republicans on the conference committee.

The American Public Transportation Association has identified $6 billion in transit security needs for U.S. public transportation systems, approximately the same amount of money we're spending each month in Iraq. Since September 11, the Federal Government has spent $18 billion on passenger air security, but only $250 million on transit security. Yet, Americans take public transportation 32 million times a day--16 times more than they fly.

Biological Weapons: Four years after the unsolved anthrax attacks on the Capitol that killed innocent workers, DHS has only completed material threat assessments on four of the biological, chemical and radiological agents that it is required to assess under Project Bioshield. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would commit to completing the rest of these threat assessments within 60 days. He said ``no.''

Today's conference report does not adequately address these issues. This bill does not:

Require chemical plants to be protected by armed guards trained to prevent attacks by sophisticated, suicidal terrorists or require chemical companies to substitute safer technologies and chemicals in their processes whenever possible, so if terrorists penetrate a plant, damage they could cause would be dramatically reduced.

Require re-routing of extremely hazardous materials whenever possible to reduce the threat of an attack on a chemical shipment in a densely populated area.

Mandate that LNG facilities should be built in remote locations far away from population centers or ensure that security officials, including State and local government representatives are involved in siting process.

Require that all the commercial cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected for bombs, just as all passengers and their luggage are.

Direct the Department of Homeland Security to complete all of the 60 material threat assessments and purchase all of the vaccine doses required under Project Bioshield.

Republicans continue to nickel and dime homeland security while writing a blank check for the war in Iraq. Specifically, the discretionary funding provided in this bill is $1.3 billion, only 4.5 percent more than last year, which is just slightly more than the rate of inflation. When Ranking Members Obey and Sabo attempted to add $1.7 billion for FEMA disaster mitigation programs, emergency management grants, chemical, transit and port security, and other critical security programs such as aviation security and Coast Guard operations, they were defeated by Republicans on a party-line vote.

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita washed away the illusion that the Federal Government is better prepared to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack than it was on 9/11. Not only are we not prepared for a natural or man-made disaster, we are not taking the preventive measures to reduce the risk of these devastating events. This conference report does not provide for qualified, experienced leadership at FEMA, nor does it return FEMA to the staffing levels of the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report, which fails to address pressing, well-known homeland security weaknesses. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report we are considering today on the House Floor fails to close dangerous homeland security loopholes that continue to put Americans at risk more than four years after the 9/11 attacks.

Despite the urgent need to increase protections against terrorists determined to strike our country, serious vulnerabilities persist in a range of major areas:

Nuclear terrorism: Non-proliferation expert Graham Allison has said that ``more likely than not'' there will be an act of nuclear terrorist attack in our country. Al Qaeda views obtaining nuclear weapons as a religious duty. There are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons-worth of highly enriched uranium in the former Soviet Union, but we do not have the technology that can reliably detect it at our ports of entry.

Chemical plant security: More than 100 facilities in 23 States could threaten 1 million or more people if terrorists attacked the facility. There are no federal security requirements for chemical plants--the industry secures itself if it decides, on its own, to do so. ``60 Minutes'' did a segment where they literally walked right through an open front gate into a chemical plant outside downtown Pittsburgh. At one facility, the reporter climbed up onto a tank containing toxic material and shouted ``hello, I'm on your tank.'' There were no guards and no one tried to stop him. There are nightclubs in New York City that are harder to get into than some of our chemical plants.

Leaks of toxic chemicals can be devastating. In India in 1984, a leak at a chemical plant in Bhopal killed at least 4,000 people and injured hundreds of thousands more.

Transportation of extremely hazardous materials: Shipments of extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine routinely travel through densely populated areas of our country. These shipments are mobile chemical weapons that often share the same track as urban passenger rail systems and could kill or injure 100,000 people within half an hour. In a report released by the Teamsters Rail Conference last week that surveyed rail employees, 63 percent of those surveyed indicated that their train or equipment was delayed or left unattended for an extended period of time that day, and of those, 55 percent indicated that there were hazardous materials aboard the train.

LNG Security: One of Millenium Bomb plotters planning to attack Los Angeles International Airport was smuggled into the country on an LNG tanker docking in Everett, MA in my Congressional District. Terrorists may target LNG tankers and terminals, resulting in catastrophic consequences for surrounding communities. In 1979, my bill to require such remote sitting was signed into law. But the Bush Administration is trying to undermine it, opening up the possibility an LNG plant would be placed, like a sitting duck, in the middle of an urban area, where an attack or accident would cause incredible devastation. Energy Bill signed into law in August 2005 froze out local officials from site decision-making process, so now convenience for energy companies, rather than security safeguards for surrounding community, will determine where facilities are built. Last month, I offered an amendment to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to require the involvement of the Coast Guard, which is part of the Homeland Security Department, in siting decisions. My amendment was defeated on the House Floor.

Republicans claim to support local control and the right of states to fend off federal encroachments. But when it comes to LNG siting, Republicans cut out mayors and governors and state homeland security officials from carrying out one of their most important responsibilities--protecting the public.

Aviation: Approximately 22 percent of all cargo transported by air in the United States is carried on passenger planes. This cargo consumes about half of the space in the cargo bay on a typical flight, and almost none of it is ever inspected! In the past, this cargo loophole has been exploited with deadly results, such as when Pam Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb hidden in unscreened baggage. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would support a requirement that 100 percent of the cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected, just as all checked bags, carry-on bags and passengers are currently inspected before boarding? He said ``No.''

Why should the booties of babies be scrutinized for bombs, but no one checks the cargo bound for the belly of a Boeing? The Bush Administration says we should trust the shipper. But we must apply the Reagan Doctrine to cargo security--Trust, but verify.

Public transit: The attacks in London and Madrid clearly demonstrated our vulnerability to similar strikes against our transit systems here in the United States. Despite these wake-up calls, this conference report provides only slightly more funding than what is being provided today. Ranking Members Obey and Sabo offered amendments during the conference to increase funding for public transit security, but these amendments were defeated by the unanimous opposition from Republicans on the conference committee.

The American Public Transportation Association has identified $6 billion in transit security needs for U.S. public transportation systems, approximately the same amount of money we're spending each month in Iraq. Since September 11, the federal government has spent $18 billion on passenger air security, but only $250 million on transit security. Yet, Americans take public transportation 32 million times a day--16 times more than they fly.

Biological Weapons: Four years after the unsolved anthrax attacks on the Capitol that killed innocent workers, DHS has only completed material threat assessments on FOUR of the biological, chemical and radiological agents that it is required to assess under Project Bioshield. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would commit to completing the rest of these threat assessments within 60 days. He said ``No.''

Today's conference report does not adequately address these issues. This bill does not:

Require chemical plants to be protected by armed guards trained to prevent attacks by sophisticated, suicidal terrorists or require chemical companies to substitute safer technologies and chemicals in their processes whenever possible, so if terrorists penetrate a plant, damage they could cause would be dramatically reduced.

Requiring re-routing of extremely hazardous materials whenever possible to reduce the threat of an attack on a chemical shipment in a densely populated area.

Mandate that LNG facilities should be built in remote locations far away from population centers or ensure that security officials, including state and local government representatives are involved in siting process.

Require that all the commercial cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected for bombs, just as all passengers and their luggage are.

Direct the Department of Homeland Security to complete all of the 60 material threat assessments and purchase all of the vaccine doses required under Project Bioshield.

Republicans continue to nickel and dime homeland security while writing a blank check for the war in Iraq. Specifically, the discretionary funding provided in this bill is $1.3 billion, only 4.5 percent more than last year, which is just slightly more than the rate of inflation. When Ranking Members Obey and Sabo attempted to add $1.7 billion for FEMA disaster mitigation programs, emergency management grants, chemical, transit and port security, and other critical security programs such as aviation security and Coast Guard operations, they were defeated by Republicans on a party-line vote.

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita washed away the illusion that the Federal government is better prepared to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack than it was on 9/11. Not only are we not prepared for a natural or man-made disaster such as a dirty bomb, we are not taking the preventive measures to reduce the risk of these devastating events. This conference report does not provide for qualified, experienced leadership at FEMA, nor does it return FEMA to the staffing levels of the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report, which fails to address pressing, well-known homeland security weaknesses. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.

Stupak:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every member to support this amendment which provides meaningful relief for our Nation that is facing record gas prices. This amendment has support of the Minority Leader Pelosi as well as the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Dingell. I would like to commend them for their support on this important initiative.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for his hard work on the refinery portions of this amendment. The results of our efforts have produced a quality product that will benefit all Americans.

I would also like to recognize Congressmen Bishop, Barrow and Etheridge and Congresswomen Herseth and Schwartz for their valued input on this legislation.

Even before the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, skyrocketing oil and gasoline prices were taxing American families and burdening our Nation's economy, with notable exceptions of the oil and gas industry which continued to rack up record profits.

Following Katrina, gas prices in some States reached $6 per gallon, deepening suspicion of the oil industry profiteering. Our amendment would ensure that the President has the tools needed to adequately respond to any energy emergency and prohibits price gouging on all petroleum products with a priority on refineries and big oil.

Whether it is gasoline or natural gas, the problem lies right here at the refinery level, with a 255 percent increase in the last 12 months alone. Here is a 1995 memo from the American Petroleum Industry, and I quote. ``A senior analyst, at the recent American petroleum energy convention, warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry does not refine or reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins.''

So since 1995, since this memo, they have closed 30 refineries. This conclusion is also backed up by the GAO, Government Accountability Office, which said in 2004 that by closing refineries, they were able to drive up to those exorbitant prices we are paying today at the pump.

Currently, there are only 28 states that have laws on the books that define price gouging and have enforcement mechanisms to go after those ripping off consumers. At the Federal level, there is no oversight to protect consumers from this predatory pricing, gouging or market manipulation. We need to pass this amendment today. No American should have to pay too much for gas because the oil companies are rigging prices.

Our amendment will give the President authority to take immediate action in the face of energy crisis by declaring a national energy emergency.

It will provide the Federal Trade Commission with new authority to investigate and prosecute those that engage in predatory pricing, from oil companies on down to gas stations, with the emphasis on those who profit the most. This includes price gouging of gasoline and natural gas, home heating oil, propane.

H.R. 3893 does nothing to address natural gas and propane gas prices, even though gas prices are expected to rise by more than 90 percent as shown in today's USA Today. Staying warm is to cost up to 90 percent more. That is natural gas. And this bill does not even address it.

Our amendment also empowers the Federal Government to impose tough civil penalties of up to triple damage on all excess profits on companies that have cheated consumers. The base bill provides no additional penalties for those who engage in price gouging.

Our amendment will also provide for relief to consumers paying skyrocketing energy and transportation costs and increase funding for the low-income home energy assistance program through fines from price- gouging companies.

It would also put in place new consumer protections to prevent market manipulation and ensure greater transparency in the cost of a gallon of gas. The base bill provides no transparency. Why is it, we in America, no one can tell us what does it cost for a gallon of gas? What does it cost for a cubic foot of natural gas? Why do they not want us to know how they are manipulating the market, gouging the American consumer?

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Americans are pulling together, donating to relief organizations and giving their time to help the people of the Gulf Coast recover. That is how American people react when they see their fellow citizens in need.

Unfortunately, some people have looked at Hurricane Katrina not as a chance to give but as an opportunity to profit. Some have decided to take advantage of this terrible tragedy and line their own pockets by gouging the American people at the gas pump.

As eight governors wrote to us in Congress urging passage of our legislation, they stated, and I quote, ``to price gouge consumers under normal circumstances is dishonest enough. But to take money off from the severe misfortune of others is downright immoral.''

Skyrocketing oil and gas prices are hurting the American consumer as well as our economy. Sadly, the majority bill does nothing to crack down on those who are manipulating the market and price gouging. The Stupak-Boucher amendment provides the kind of relief from high gas and energy prices that consumers deserve.

Our amendment will protect all consumers from unfair energy and gas prices and punish those who think that a time of a national tragedy is the right time to rob the American people of their hard-earned money.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a member of the committee and my partner in drafting this amendment, the substitute amendment.

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), one of the authors of this substitute, and we appreciate her.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), who helped us with the substitute and had invaluable input.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, when the oil refineries raise their rates 255 percent in the last 12 months, that is unconscionably excessive.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I guess we are going to have to look in the bill, because in the bill we also put in there factors to be considered excessively too much. If you go to the bottom of page 2, bottom of page 3, we put it in there. Our bill says that in 90 days the FTC has to define it for us.

I will give the gentleman examples. I think excessive is more than reasonable. When it is more than reasonable pricing.

A great example is Georgia. Why did it go up $6 a gallon after Hurricane Katrina? Was that reasonable, when the rest of the Nation was about $3? That is excessive. That is unconscionable.

Then the President, much like the manager's bill, and much like excessive, and the gentleman's bill has the same language basically because you copied our bill, so you can go outside the area. The President has the authority to go outside the area, just like he does in the underlying area.

And getting back to the FTC and what is excessive, again just like your bill, you used different words, but you allow the FTC to define it. We gave more than you gave. We actually gave concrete factors to consider.

In answer to the gentleman's last question, if you look at page 4, we have rulemaking in there, where the FTC shall promulgate the rules necessary and appropriate to enforce. Under the rulemaking process, you, myself, just about all of us have an opportunity to put in our two cents' worth on what we feel may be excessive, market manipulation, or price gouging. So, again, if you want to dwell on a word or two, I think all Americans know when they are being excessively gouged at the pump.

Go ahead. I will try to answer it.

It is just like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; it is up to the Secretary to approve it. Would the Federal Government and Federal employees operate it? No. Much like we did in the energy bill for nuclear. Let us put it up and build it, but let someone else operate it and manage it.

They would operate around the clock. Mr. Chairman, if you look on page 18 on how it would be implemented, it is starting on line 9, we have the implementation plan, and it must be established within 2 years and how they are going to do it. But we would operate it year- round. The refined product would go to, without an energy declaration by the President, refined product would go to the military to meet their military needs. At times of emergency, then we would shift to give relief at home at the pump for the American people.

``Shall transmit the plan to Congress for establishment and operation of the strategic refinery reserve,'' lines 11 and 12.

Again, he will submit his plan, whoever the Secretary is. They may have a different idea, but they must submit it to the Congress so we can see. It is just like SPR, subject to appropriation, subject to congressional oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic floor leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader, who has been so supportive in our efforts to make sure that Americans get a fair shake at the gas pump and when they heat their homes this winter and go to work each and every day. She has been there fighting for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 474, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 2360, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased today to present for consideration the conference agreement on the funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Five weeks ago this Nation experienced perhaps the worst natural disaster in our history.

Ninety thousand square miles were declared a disaster area. Ninety thousand square miles, an area twice the size of my home State of Kentucky. I believe Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call. It showed us we are not indestructible. Vulnerabilities clearly exist. We were reminded that there are many threats to the homeland security beyond terrorism.

There are obviously many lingering and important questions about Hurricane Katrina, all of which need to be and will be addressed in the upcoming months. We witnessed firsthand in Katrina the immediate response was inadequate. We also saw how responses varied across State lines and at different levels of government.

But while the response to Katrina was plagued by problems, the preparation response to Hurricane Rita was not. We observed a substantially more organized preparation and response, demonstrating how the Department of Homeland Security can and does work

as an effective organization. The fact is for many within the Department, the response to these disasters has been nothing short of remarkable.

For instance, in the week immediately following Katrina, the Coast Guard saved more than 33,000 lives, more than the Coast Guard saved over the past 5 years. Over 4,000 Coast Guard, 12,000 FEMA, 2,500 Federal law enforcement personnel have been sent to support Hurricane Katrina and Rita relief operations, and their work continues even as we speak.

The bill before us supports these efforts and more. It provides the funds the Department needs to prevent, prepare and respond to disasters, both natural and man-made. It provides a balance among Homeland Security programs and ensures the Department has the resources it needs to carry out its missions. This bill maintains a steady course towards keeping our communities safe and making our Nation more secure.

In total, the 2006 conference agreement provides $30.8 billion, $1.4 billion above the current year and $1.3 billion above what the President asked of us. This includes more than $19.1 billion for border protection and immigration enforcement; $3.3 billion for our Nation's first responders; $6.33 billion for transportation security; $1.5 billion for research, development and deployment of innovative technologies; and $625 million for protecting our national critical infrastructure and key assets.

In the interest of time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight just a few of these items that I know are of interest to all the Members.

There is $3.3 billion for our first responders. This agreement strikes a balance between funding high-risk communities and providing support for States and localities to achieve and maintain minimum levels of preparedness. The bill includes $950 million for basic formula and law enforcement terrorism prevention grants and $1.2 billion for security in our urban and most populated areas, including $390 million for transportation and infrastructure security grants. Some people say the amount of money for first responders is below the current level, and it is true. It is. The reason for that is they have got $6.6 billion in the pipeline, not yet allocated; so why add to the reservoir when the river is running full?

The bill provides $19.1 billion for border protection, immigration enforcement and related activities, which is $1.2 billion over the current year and almost a half billion over what the President asked of us. That includes $1.8 billion for border security and control; $3.4 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; $340 million for the US-VISIT program; $2.9 billion for Coast Guard operations; fully funding Deepwater at $933.1 million; and $40 million for the implementation of the REAL ID Act.

So I think the agreement, Mr. Speaker, will go a long way towards improving the integrity of our borders. When we combine what we have in this bill with the 2005 supplemental, we will have 1,500 new Border Patrol agents and 568 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents across the land to be hired in fiscal year 2006. The bill also supports a total of 20,300 detention beds for housing people who are locked up, having come across the border.

The conference agreement supports security for all modes of transportation, including $6.3 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Air Marshals and $150 million in rail security grants.

There is $85 million for air cargo security, which will support the hiring of 100 new air cargo inspectors, the development of new cargo screening technology and the expansion of canine enforcement teams. The bill also continues to provide strong oversight of TSA's progress towards inspecting all cargo that is transported on passenger aircraft.

There is $1.5 billion for science and technology, including $318 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office that will coordinate our Nation's efforts against the smuggling of nuclear materials into our country. This is a brand new agency, and this is brand new funding. We also continue to fully fund research and development for antimissile devices that might be used against commercial aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, the important work of the Department of Homeland Security cannot be emphasized enough. As we continue to watch the recovery efforts in the Gulf States and our hearts go out with our money to those regions, it is clear that the assets we have given the Department over the past 3 years are being put to good use. I believe this conference agreement builds on the Department's progress and substantially furthers the protection of our homeland, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has been enormously helpful in this bill all the way through.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), one of the hard-working members of our subcommittee whose work helped make this bill happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), another hard-working member of our subcommittee whom I rely upon very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, I think it is important that the gentleman from Minnesota and I express our thanks to staff. They make us look good, because they are the ones who produce these products, the staff that is seated here with me and the staff on the minority side. These people have done yeoman's work day and night for the last year on this bill. I want to thank them for all of the great work that they have done.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the conference report, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all acknowledge the very hard work of the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and I recognize that this is a difficult challenge.

As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and now the authorizing committee for two terms, I believe that those of us who have studied the details of the structure of homeland security can speak with a degree of information, if you will, of both the assets of this appropriation but also some elements that are obviously missing.

Spending a lot of time walking through the cots and amongst those who were survivors of Hurricane Katrina, having now in our community almost 125,000, I know the fear and the devastation of the lack of preparedness of this government. So it is to my dismay that the acceptance of Secretary Chertoff's reorganization plan was not put on hold so that we could truly find out what were the funding needs.

I join my colleagues in wanting more dollars for rail security. I have joined my colleagues in offering new legislation today that was articulated by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). I join my colleagues in the concerns of the limited regulation of chemical plants. But, most of all, I speak to issues that I think would save additional lives.

There are 1,100 persons dead and still counting in the Hurricane Katrina backdrop of Mississippi, Alabama and in New Orleans. We have yet to mourn those who have lost their lives. But certainly the director for preparedness and response is not the answer. FEMA needs to be independent, self-sufficient, well-funded and a separate component to Homeland Security, even to the extent of being its own cabinet.

I realize that Michael Brown has been singled out, and I am delighted that Director Paulson is the Acting Director, but I can assure my colleagues, having been to Beaumont and Port Arthur after Hurricane Katrina, we did not have our act together then. We did not have our time and our organization together, even then. FEMA was not there timely. Generators that were needed were not there. Ice and water was not there. The National Guard did not have orders, and no one knew who was in charge. So, frankly, I believe there is much work to be done.

In the backdrop of the potential epidemic of bird flu, I believe there needs to be more resources and efforts than a chief medical officer. We need to boost up under Homeland Security the public health system. The sense of Congress that Immigration and Customs and border protection should be merged, I

do not know if that is a well-thought-out plan. In fact, we need to investigate some of the failings of these entities before we begin to merge one entity into another.

I am grateful that we have provided dollars for transportation security, but it is not enough. Whistleblower protection is good, but there is not enough funding, if you will, to establish an independent, strong FEMA. That is what we need to be focusing on, and the reorganization plan should not be accepted in the backdrop and the failures of Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this appropriations measure because this Nation desperately needs all the resources it can get. According to the Department of Defense, over 15,000 of our troops have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have about 18,000 American troops deployed in Afghanistan and about 149,000 in Iraq for the current war effort. During the August recess, 85 American troops were killed in Iraq, and nearly 2,000 have been killed since September. To further exacerbate matters, the price tag for the war has already exceeded $196 billion, broken down to about $5 billion per month. These monies and bodies have been and are being expended on an effort that is not bringing the relief that is currently needed right here on American soil.

With these motions in mind, Mr. Speaker, I will ultimately support the underlying legislation under the Conference Report, but I recognize that it has many shortfalls that will affect this Nation's ability to respond to a new and substantial set of circumstances--namely the aftermath of Katrina and Rita. I speak not only from the standpoint of a Representative of an area that experienced compound effects of both Katrina and Rita, but I speak as a mother, wife, and a person who understands the pains of economic hardship.

I applaud the Conferees for giving agencies such as ICE an appropriation of $3.175 billion--which was a $216 million increase over the FY05 level of $2.95 billion. Furthermore, of the $4.6 billion allocated to TSA, $2.54 billion is allocated to cover the passenger and baggage screener workforce. The number of TSA screeners is capped at 45,000--which will constrain our efforts to compensate for the effects of the two hurricanes. Within this account, privatized screening operations are funded at $140 million. The conferees also extended liability protection to airports with private and TSA screeners for ``any act of negligence, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing'' committed by a Federal or private screener--which will be a good element.

While I support many of the allocations set forth in this measure, it is my feeling that, overall, the initiative to implement the departmental facelift called for in the Secretary's Second Stage Review is the wrong focus at this time. Katrina and Rita have created more pressing issues that could be addressed with this bill.

To compound the severe need for resources and administrative services caused by the hurricanes, there are major departmental changes that have been made that could weaken our ability to address those needs. The proposed transfer of all state and local grants and associated activities to the new Preparedness Directorate must be given oversight analysis before it is implemented. After having seen firsthand the cries for ice, potable water, food, and other subsistence items in Baton Rouge, LA and in my own backyard of Port Arthur, I know that this bill does not do all that it can to make us more prepared for incidents similar to Katrina and Rita.

Unfortunately, the underlying bill is not exactly on-point or up-to- date vis-a-vis Hurricane Rita. Many of the problems that we face are new, late breaking, and developing in front of our eyes.

In emergency situations such as occurred in the Gulf States, communications capabilities are essential. Emergency responders must have the equipment that will allow essential communications efforts to continue in case of the major damage to infrastructure we have seen in New Orleans.

Clearly, the Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to change-- from the bottom to the top. We need to look at whether the tasks charged to FEMA are too large to be included with 21 other agencies under the Department. Before some of the very substantial changes set forth in H.R. 2360 are passed into law, we need to seriously consider separating FEMA so that from top to bottom--especially given the recent resignation of former Director, Michael Brown, whose credentials as an emergency manager had been widely questioned.

Funds that we appropriate to FEMA must be prioritized for disaster preparedness, and we need substantial oversight in order to prevent catastrophic aftermaths.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I commend the gentleman from Michigan for his great leadership, and I thank him for his great leadership on behalf of the American consumer and the American taxpayer.

The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Virginia with their very wise substitute give a chance to help the consumer and declare energy independence. I also want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, for his extraordinary leadership on this and so many issues. Also, I salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chair of the Science Committee, for his recognition that this Democratic substitute is a better way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican energy bill. It is anti-taxpayer. It is anti-consumer. And it is anti- environment. I encourage my colleagues to support the Stupak-Boucher substitute. This bill should be called, The Republican Gifts to Special Interests Bill. It is a perfect example of the Republican culture of cronyism and corruption. Using Hurricane Katrina as their excuse, the Republicans are once again pushing their special interest agenda at the expense of the American people.

Americans do not need legislation passed here today to enrich the oil industry. Americans need relief from high Georgia prices. This week, the average price at the pump was $2.92 a gallon. That is 99 cents more than a year ago and 30 cents higher than just pre-Katrina. It is also twice the cost per gallon than the first year when President Bush took office.

Winter is around the corner, and so are skyrocketing increases in home heating costs. Families who heat with natural gas could see their fuel costs increase more than 70 percent in some parts of the country. It is astounding. Families are expected to spend nearly three times as much for home heating oil again than they did 4 years ago, the first year President Bush took office. Let us get this straight. Price at the pump for the consumer, per gallon of gas, is twice as high as 4 years ago, the first year President Bush took office. For home heating oil, you are expected to pay three times as much as you did 4 years ago, the first year President Bush took office.

Yet for the second time in 1 month, the Republicans have brought a bill to the floor that fails to address price gouging, fails to bring down prices and fails to put us on the road to energy independence.

As with the energy bill passed this summer, this bill ignores the real need of the American people and rewards the greed of special interests. Need or greed, take your choice. The Republicans in this culture of corruption and cronyism came down on the side of greed. This bill includes all the special favors to the energy industry that were too extreme to be included in the energy bill passed by Congress less than 3 months ago.

Refinery companies have deliberately closed and consolidated their facilities to drive up profit margins. They are making enormous profits. Do the American people really believe the right response is to waive environmental laws, brush aside State and local authorities and open up Federal lands to new refineries? Of course not. But that is the Republican approach: Greed over need.

Republicans blame the Clean Air Act for our record energy costs. Even after removing its most extreme provisions, this bill still includes the so-called bump-up provision, which would expose millions of Americans to unhealthy levels of smog for years to come. Once again, greed over need.

Our Democratic substitute to this bill, introduced again by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the

gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) creates a strategic refinery initiative which would be able to produce 5 percent of the daily demand for gasoline when needed, real solutions to America's energy crisis. That is what this substitute contains. If you are able to produce 5 percent, bump that up to the daily demand, you can reduce the price of gasoline at the pump drastically.

For weeks, Democrats have demanded a new Federal law to crack down on price gouging by the energy industry. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has that very bill. Consumers are being cheated every time they fill up their cars or turn up their thermostat by an industry making record profits. But this bill does not come close to addressing the severe gouging of consumers.

Our Democratic substitute provides real protection from price gouging for the first time. We have been asking for it over and over. Here we have a bill on the floor that will do just that. The Stupak-Boucher bill gives the Federal Trade Commission broad authority to crack down on price gouging for a wide range of fuels, for businesses all along the supply chain.

Our substitute provides for tough civil penalties and allows attorneys general to enforce the Federal law without interfering with State price gouging laws. Mr. Speaker, it is time for our Nation to make a declaration of energy independence. This is an urgent issue of national security. Together, America can do better. We have the resources. We have the technology. We have the innovative ideas, and more of them are springing forth all the time. We can do it right and create millions of new jobs at the same time.

We have an enormous untapped potential in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energy. By implementing existing technologies and developing new ones in every sector of the economy and American life, we can take a giant step toward energy independence. This is not just about turning down the thermostat or driving less. Many Americans have had to do that for a long time now, they have already taken those steps; as much as this is about using our ingenuity to make our lives better and more comfortable.

Let us make progress. Let us set aside this back-to-the-future energy bill and turn our faces into the 21st Century, toward our Nation's true needs. I urge my colleagues to again reject this special interest Republican giveaway act and support the Democratic substitute. Together, Americans can do better.

Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is: Is it not bringing dishonor to the House of Representatives for this body to act in the shameful way that it is? Is it not part of the culture of corruption of the Republican Party to dishonor the wishes of the American people?

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. THOMAS (during the vote). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Based upon the statement of the gentleman from Maryland that everyone had voted and that therefore the vote should have been closed----