Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006

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

I am pleased to be here today to present the fiscal 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.

The first chapter for the Department of Homeland Security has been written. Progress has been made, and our country is safer today than it was before September 11. In 2 years the Department has developed and deployed new technologies to inspect cargo at our seaports and detect hazards in our environment. US-VISIT has been put in place at all international airports and seaports; a one-stop shop for first responders has been created; more than 90,000 national assets have been catalogued in a national infrastructure database; and a communications system with State and local governments is in place.

These are important accomplishments, but they are not enough. There is a great deal of work to be done, and it is time to write the next chapter.

The bill before us today provides $30.8 billion in discretionary funds for the upcoming fiscal year, $1.4 billion above the current year and $1.3 billion above the amounts requested by the President. There are some tough choices in here, but they have been made after a careful review of how the Department is functioning, which programs work, and which ones, quite frankly, are broken.

Nearly 2 years ago, when the Department was first created and came before the Committee on Appropriations seeking funds, I made it clear that homeland security requires the active engagement of all Americans and all branches of government; that we are all stakeholders and must be treated as such. I also advised that the Committee on Appropriations would be a partner as the Department sought to secure our homeland, that we would not be casual bystanders willing to sign a blank check. I have consistently

and repeatedly told the Department that we would require accountability and cooperation, that we would expect them to establish and meet specific milestones, that we would watch and measure their progress. We have done that, exactly that. And, frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed.

I have come to the conclusion that there are two fundamental challenges within this Department. First, DHS has been slow to build its internal capabilities. The information technology infrastructure has not been integrated. There is no system in place to develop, certify, and transfer homeland security technologies. A financial management system that tracks where the money goes does not exist, and there is only a limited capacity to put first responder funds out on the street based on standards and minimum levels of preparedness.

Second, the Department has not been successful at revising missions and assets of legacy organizations in a way that reflects the post-9/11 homeland security environment. All too many examples come to mind: the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Protection, and Transportation Security. In too many cases it is just business as usual. Missions and threats have changed, but the Department has not. This is unacceptable. The ``business as usual'' mentality has to go.

The bill before us is anything but business as usual. The Department has been a reluctant partner and has ignored requests for information and direction to move expeditiously in the implementation of important national policies and goals.

This became all too obvious this year when the Department ignored Congressional requests for comprehensive information on the Coast Guard's important Deepwater program. The Department will find that that lack of information has cost them. Absent a revised baseline that reflects post-9/11 mission requirements for the Coast Guard, Deepwater is being funded at pre-9/11 levels, $500 million. That is $466 million below the request. It is a simple equation, Mr. Chairman: No information equals no money.

Throughout this bill, we will see this equation applied. There are more than $485 million in cuts because the Congress did not get the information we needed to make informed decisions about programs and operations. There is also more than $310 million in fenced funding, until the Department performs certain actions, including implementation of new air cargo screening methods and standards, an immigration and border security enforcement strategy, and a plan to deploy explosive detection technologies to our Nation's airports.

Within this bill, first responders are funded at the President's requested level of $3.6 billion. I would like to point out that there continues to be problems at the local, State, and Federal levels in terms of getting money actually out to first responders. We have recently learned, Mr. Chairman, that only 30 percent of the funds that we have appropriated since 2002, have been spent. Including the 2005 grant money, there is $6.8 billion in the grant pipeline.

Mr. Chairman, that is unacceptable.

The bill does not propose any changes to the current formula as to how those monies are dealt out, but it does recognize that legislation which passed this Chamber last week is moving through the process. The appropriations bill will allow 2006 funding to go out based on any formula change that may be signed into law. The bill also presumes that if new formulas do not go into effect, the Department would maintain the minimum allocation for States of .75 percent. The balance of that fund, though, would go out based on risk, threat, and need; not, as it has in the past, based solely on population. That is a fundamental change in the way first responder monies would go out.

The bill also includes a significant increase for border security and immigration enforcement. A total of $1.2 billion is added for the Customs and Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement branches. That funding is on top of the $550 million that was provided in the emergency supplemental just signed. Between that supplemental and this bill, we will be providing the Department with the resources to hire an additional 1,500 border patrol agents and 568 ICE officers throughout the country. Funds are also available to add some 3,870 detention beds, which would be roughly a 20 percent increase over current levels. Also, funds are available for new radiation portal monitors and air assets.

These funds, though, Mr. Chairman, would come with strings attached. Our immigration enforcement strategy needs an overhaul. Despite more than tripling spending on border security and immigration enforcement in the last 10 years, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has more than doubled, an unbelievable 11 million estimated illegal aliens in the country; and that number is growing by a half a million a year, by conservative estimates.

And of that total, there are more than 465,000 absconders, people who have been caught, brought to court, released on their own recognizance to report at a later date, which they fail to do. And of those, 80,000 of them have criminal records. Those numbers, Mr. Chairman, will only get worse unless we act.

Immigration enforcement is one of the most critical components of homeland security, yet the Department's current strategy has changed little since the days of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service. In order to inspire change, the bill includes language requiring the Secretary to submit an immigration enforcement strategy to reduce the number of undocumented aliens by 10 percent per year. The bill withholds $20 million of the Secretary's office funds until we receive that strategy.

Finally, for transportation security, the bill includes $6.4 billion, partially offset by fees, which is an increase of $344 million above the current year. The bill includes several provisions that address years of frustration in dealing with the Transportation Security Administration. For too long, TSA and others have ignored congressional direction regarding general aviation at Reagan National Airport. A legislative provision is included, after these 3 or 4 years of discussions, requiring the Secretary to open Reagan National Airport to general aviation within 90 days of enactment of this act.

The committee also has repeatedly asked for a plan as to how TSA would be installing the explosive detection systems, the so-called x- ray machines, at our airports. Again, TSA has ignored the Congress. In addition to providing $495 million for the purchase and installation of these x-ray machines, the committee fences $50 million of the administrator's funds until an installation plan is provided to the Congress.

Finally, the bill provides $100 million for cargo security in passenger planes. TSA has ignored congressional directions to triple the screening of air cargo on passenger aircraft. As a result, the committee reduces the appropriation for TSA headquarters by $100,000 for each day that the tripling of air cargo is not implemented. The bill also fences another $10 million until new cargo screening standards and protocols are implemented.

These next few years, Mr. Chairman, will define the Department's place in history. This bill may be tough, and I admit that it is, but I hope it is a wakeup call. It is time to take strong action to ensure that the Department's place in history and our safety will be one of success and leadership in securing our homeland and not one of government bureaucracy and failed opportunities. It is now time for action.

I appreciate that the bill includes several tough provisions. I am aware that the new Secretary is in the process of completing what he calls a second-stage review of the Department's programs and operations. I am pleased about that. While I have great respect and confidence in the Department's new leadership, and we look forward to receiving any recommendations the Secretary may have to move the Department forward, we cannot ignore the fundamental problems that we have been experiencing with this Department since its creation. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.015

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. Chairman, I submit the following exchange of letters for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2005.

Hon. Bill Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas. Thank you for your letter regarding

H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations

Act for fiscal year 2006. As you have noted, the bill is

scheduled for floor consideration on Tuesday, May 17, 2005. I

appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage of this

legislation although it contains a provision involving

overtime pay that falls within your Committee's jurisdiction.

I appreciate your decision to forgo further action on the

bill and acknowledge that it will not prejudice the Committee

on Ways and Means with respect to its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

Our committees have worked closely together on this

important initiative, and I am very pleased we are continuing

that cooperation. I appreciate your helping us to move this

legislation quickly to the floor. Finally, I will include in

the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on

this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

We look forward to working with you in the future.

Best regards,

Harold Rogers,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished and very able chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time as well, and I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of money in this section of the bill. I think we have put all the money we can into that section, and it is ample.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I rise reluctantly in opposition to the gentleman's amendment that would earmark $6 million for the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement and the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator out of funds provided for the Office of the Secretary and executive management.

Mr. Chairman, the Department currently has eight people working on counternarcotics issues. In the past 2 years, we funded $1.86 million for that activity. That is almost half the funding provided for the Chief of Staff of the Department, where the counternarcotics staff are located. A $6 million earmark for counternarcotics would have the effect of zeroing out all funding for all other activities funded within the Chief of Staff's office, including the development of budget and information technology policies for the secretary.

In fact, this amendment would require additional reductions in the Chief of Staff's office to fund this work. These reductions would mean that the Secretary would hire fewer security staff to focus on classified and security-sensitive issues within the Department, reduce support for the privacy office, or perhaps eliminate most of the newly proposed Office of Policy and also prohibit the hiring of new staff requested in the 2006 budget.

There is no real clear justification why this office should basically triple in one fiscal year from less than $2 million to $6 million, or what the appropriate size of the office should be, particularly when they have not even filled all the funded positions they have.

While I support the counterdrug mission of the Department, and in fact wish that the Chief Counternarcotics Officer would take a more prominent role in resolving longstanding issues of interagency coordination of drug interdiction, we cannot appropriate funds without knowing what those funds will be paying for. We just do not write blank checks in this subcommittee. I respect the gentleman's amendment and his intent.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Reclaiming my time, that is correct, and this is where the staff is now located. So it would have to come out of the Chief of Staff's operating budget.

Perhaps the gentleman can withdraw the amendment and we will have a chance to work on it further.

I will be happy to work with the gentleman. He has been a very diligent Member of this body, and I appreciate the information he is providing to us now. We will work with the gentleman to try to get at the problem he describes here.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to state a point of order and in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal will likely cause an overage on outlays, and so the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I will read it again to the gentlewoman.

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I really appreciate the action of the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Coast Guard authorization committee. I really appreciate the gentleman's amendment and the comments that have been made. I think we are all in agreement. There is nothing that hurt me more in this bill than when we were forced to cut back the Deepwater monies until we could get the report of the Coast Guard about what the 20-year plans were.

I am a big supporter of Deepwater. In fact, when I was chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee is when we first funded Deepwater. The gentleman from Minnesota and I served on that subcommittee as well. It is a wonderful program.

But then came 9/11. When 9/11 happened, the mission of the Coast Guard dramatically changed and they never really amended the Deepwater program in view of that very alarming new mission that they became charged with. And then we have continued to fund them for the last 2 years just based on their promise that they would get us the revised plan--a rebaselining. And then as time passed and we began to notice with the help of the gentleman from New Jersey's subcommittee that more and more of the Deepwater monies intended for new equipment was being used to maintain the old equipment, increasingly eating into the Deepwater monies. We felt we had no choice but to try to force the issue.

We have bent over backwards, 15 different ways, with the Coast Guard and with the Department to try to get them to tell us the new 20-year plan, the rebaselined Deepwater, so that we all know where we are going and we know what we are buying.

This subcommittee is not going to be a blank check for anybody. We insist on knowing what the program is. I think that is our duty. As soon as the Coast Guard can get us the 20-year Deepwater spending plan, I think the problem will disappear but not until. The old equation, lack of information means lack of money, applies to the Coast Guard as it does to my personal account.

I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's work and his attitude in the subcommittee. He is a great leader of that subcommittee and has done a wonderful job. We have enjoyed working with him. He is easy to work with. He is very firm in his convictions, but he understands what has to be done here.

I hope that this painful period of time will pass. It is up to the Coast Guard and the Department and perhaps, most importantly, the Office of Management and Budget to all finally agree and let us get on with it. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

The gentleman is exactly correct. In fact, in the 2002 period of time we were requesting the new baseline. We did that in 2003. And then in the 2005 bill finally, we wrote it into the law that said you shall furnish the rebaselining on a such and so date. That time has long past gone. We still do not have it. What else can we do? I am open to all ideas, but I think the only weapon we have left is withholding funds.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in this bill we double the amount of money that is in the 2005. We double it, $40 million more than they had in 2005, and it is 50 percent more than what the President requested. I mean we are shoveling money at this office. To shovel more money at them would be, I think, wasteful, to say the very least.

Number two, this proposal would cut the Office of the Secretary. We are already doing a lot of that in this bill, and to cut them any more I think would be counterproductive. That Office of the Secretary is $133 million plus. This cut would result in a 15 percent reduction from that figure. The office is largely salaries and expenses, and cuts will result in fewer people attempting to meet an increasing workload. Fewer people means the Department will take even more time to respond to our Congressional inquiries.

We have been critical of that office, but it is this office that will ultimately make the changes needed to make this Department work. They are working on the new Secretary's second-stage review even as we speak. It is only now that the office has been fully staffed up. Any cuts would directly affect these positions.

In 2006 we recommended about 90 new positions to address critical needs in the Secretary's Office. These cuts that the gentlewoman proposes would result in reductions in security personnel responsible for classified material. It would reduce the newly expanded privacy office, and it would reduce the newly created policy office, a function that should help eliminate some of the stovepiped functions that we complain about in the Department.

So I would urge Members to reject the amendment. We have already doubled the amount of money in that account in this bill, and it would slash the Office of the Secretary at a very critical time.

I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Texas is correct. The Department has failed to take corrective action, and that is why this act will withhold $50 million in funding until the Department submits a detention and removal plan that addresses these issues in a more comprehensive manner. Already this year, the border patrol has apprehended over 75,000 illegals, Other Than Mexicans, more than twice the number of apprehensions compared to this same time last year; and we still have 5 months to go.

Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman first described to me the ``catch-and-release'' policy and how it has affected the border communities, I was surprised to learn that the Department had not made full use of its authority. I understand that doing so will not only allow the Department to remove OTMs two to three times faster than traditional methods while permitting legitimate asylum claims, but would cut detention costs for such individuals by more than 50 percent.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman. I think this is an excellent amendment. I am delighted that the gentlewoman has been able to ferret this out and bring it to the attention of all of us, and I want to say what a great job the gentlewoman has done and that I am going to vote for the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I opposed a similar amendment at the full committee level, but that was due largely to the use of IAIP funds to offset this amount. That would have stopped all construction and renovation of that growing directorate.

We have been working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, on this particular matter. We found a more suitable offset. We have reduced other first responder grant programs in this bill because of poor guidance and large

unspent balances. However, these grants do go directly to the fire departments. There is no choke point issue involved with these funds, and so I enthusiastically support the amendment on the floor and urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts to work with our subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations, and I regret that the process of coordination did not go more smoothly.

I should acknowledge that the gentleman has indeed only sought to expose to points of order provisions or conditions that are genuinely authorization provisions, not all provisions against which a point of order would lie. Since the exposed provisions and conditions are, in fact, authorizing provisions, I want to assure the gentleman that in the conference negotiations on such provisions, I will follow the will of the authorizing committee in advancing the House position; and the conference report will, to the greatest extent possible, follow the will of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I fully sympathize with the concerns the gentleman from New Jersey has brought up, and the other gentleman has, about the issue of safety at chemical plants. We have 77,000 of them in the country and 17,000 of those deal with hazardous materials. So it is a big exposure that we have.

However, I have to respectfully urge the defeat of this amendment for two or three reasons. One, we have included $50 million in the bill just for critical infrastructure protection, including chemical plants, already. I know the gentleman will be pleased to hear that we do have that amount of money in there: the amount he is requesting is already in the bill.

Number two, we put in some very strong report language directing the Department to continue and complete the vulnerability assessments of all critical chemical facilities in the country. We have already reduced the State and Urban Area grant programs in this bill because of poor guidance, but mainly because they have still got $6.8 billion that we have appropriated since 2002 in the pipeline. They have only spent 30 percent of all we have appropriated. They have $6.8 billion left in the Office of Domestic Policy, which makes these grants. So there is plenty of money there. There is no point of putting more, until they draw down on what they already have.

Number three, I have a problem with where the gentleman is taking the money from. We have already hit the Under Secretary for Management's Office big time in this bill already. We have taken $26 million today, and this is the place where the important work of the Department needs to take place. If you take this $50 million from the Under Secretary of Management, it could only come from one place without impacting personnel; that is to say, lay off people, and that is the Human Resource System of the Department.

A $50 million reduction in that system would halt implementation of that human resource system program in its tracks. We would be unable to fund the ``pay pool,'' which would prevent the initial conversion of employees from the General Schedule to the new market-based pay bands and the pay-for-performance programs.

We would also be unable to provide competent program management and evaluation. It would delay the establishment of the Department's Labor Relations Board, as required by the final regulations. We would not be able to access knowledgeable outside experts that understand industry best practices in compensation design sets.

We would be unable to fund the training of managers, supervisors, and employees, and that lack of training would also have profound impacts on the credibility of the program with the employee base and their representatives.

So, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment, sympathizing with the gentleman's sentiments. But I think we have plenty of money there now, and I do not want to see us hurt the human resource system that is being put in place even as we speak. So I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is absolutely correct. There is a definite problem with our system that we hope to correct.

The bill before us provides $690 million, $90 million more than DHS asked, for an additional 1,920 detention bed spaces; and that combined with what we provided in the supplemental appropriations bill last week will add a total of 3,870 new beds over the current level. In addition, the bill provides $43 million for alternatives to detention, tripling last year's level and $10 million more than DHS requested. That will go further to attack the problem of the so-called OTMs who abuse our immigration policies and leave a gaping hole in the integrity of the borders.

I am convinced that the so-called catch-and-release practice signals that our current system is in need of significant reform. This bill is intended to make an effort in that respect.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree that the program should focus on both the traditional and homeland security missions of the Coast Guard.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I recognize the gentleman's concerns. We will work with him on this subject if the authorization bill retains R&D funding within the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing up this important subject. The gentleman makes an extremely important point, and that is we have two borders, the southwest and the Canadian border.

Over the years, I have to agree, we have neglected the northern border. So I join the gentleman in his sentiments that we find the monies, or be sure that the monies we have appropriated are spent on both borders. I thank the gentleman for bringing up that very important point.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for the time.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and as well the chairman and ranking member of the full committee. If there is ever a challenge, Mr. Chairman, it is a challenge of trying to get one's hands around the massiveness of homeland security.

I think if we have ever realized the importance of the work of the subcommittee on appropriations, and also the authorizing committee, it was last Wednesday, just less than a week ago, when masses of people in this area were told to evacuate and Members of Congress were seen fleeing, as others stood by watching them.

We have, if you will, a crisis more or less in the way that we handle homeland security issues, and the focus in terms of resources could not be more important and could not be more immediate.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the dollars that are in this particular legislation dealing with Customs and border protection and immigration and Customs enforcement. I would like to see more. I do believe that the lack of dollars in the Fire grants is something that we need to improve.

What I would like to focus on, in particular, is the need to, one, I hope over time eliminate aspects of the REAL ID bill but to emphasize that it is seemingly unwieldy to suggest that States have to implement the REAL ID bill with a national ID card and no dollars, and I believe that this bill falls short of the amount of money needed to implement the REAL ID bill.

Then look at those of us who are border States, Texas, California, Mexico and Arizona, facing the likes of the Minutemen. On May 1, the Houston Chronicle said that the Minutemen are headed for Texas. We are patriots but we can handle our own business, but the Federal Government needs to handle immigration business.

I believe that we need more resources at the border for Customs and border patrol protection agents, more dollars for enforcement technology, more dollars to be able to protect the border, more dollars to ward off inappropriate, unauthorized militia on our borders. The reason why Americans are taking up immigration in their own hands is because we have failed them.

Mr. Chairman, we need enforcement with respect to employer sanctions. We need enforcement with respect to promoting American jobs. We need enforcement as it relates to protecting our borders, north and south; and yes, Mr. Chairman, we need comprehensive immigration reform.

I have introduced the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2005, which has to do with reuniting families, legalization for long- time residents, protecting women against violence and the border protection, as well as dealing with American jobs. I hope that we will have an opportunity in appropriations and authorization to look at immigration reform.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the distinguished chairman will acknowledge that we believe this is revenue neutral. This amendment is offset by the account out of the Secretary's office and it is not legislating on an appropriation bill, but it is addressing a need that is overwhelming in our offices and throughout America.

If our message to America is that we believe in legalization and we believe in the legal access to immigration, or to legalization, meaning that we want people to come into the United States legally and to secure legal status, then we are doing everything wrong to encourage that proposition.

We know that this country is a land of immigrants and a land of laws, and through the decades, through the centuries immigrants have come first through the Atlantic, through the Statue of Liberty, through Ellis Island, seeking opportunity and seeking legalization. And, Mr. Chairman, we have allowed that to happen. We have had processes in place that would work toward, not against those processes occurring.

Today, ask any Member of Congress what is the largest caseload they have in their office, and it is regarding immigration benefits and access to citizenship. Not illegal access, but legal access. When we look at the documentation we find that there is a steadily increasing number of individuals seeking legal immigrant status. In the years 2001, 7.8 million, 2002, 7.7 million, 2003, 7.1 million. At the same time, we find that there is a lack of access to real immigration rights because we are backlogged.

There is an enormous backlog, even though there are no numerical limits, as reported in this chart, no numerical limits on the admission of aliens who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Such citizens petitioning for their relatives are waiting almost a year, almost a year, and in some parts of the country almost 2 years for the paperwork to be processed.

Citizens and other legal permanent residents petitioning for other nonimmediate relatives under family preferences are often waiting several years for the petition to be processed.

This is a crisis, colleagues. We are working against our own philosophies and policies, which is to encourage legal immigration. Right now you can ask any Member of Congress whether they have an elderly constituent who is attempting to beat the clock of life.

Right now in my own office there is a gentleman who loves this country, in his 80s, and he has been trying to become a citizen through legal ways for almost a decade. Right now he is ailing. His family calls me every day. The reason his petition is taking so long is because we are backlogged and cannot seem to get a simple process of fingerprints and documentation together at once.

The additional $15 million in this amendment will help us in funding the hiring, clearance processes, training, office equipment, and support services for 300 additional full-time CIS adjudicators. The Sensenbrenner-Conyers substitute amended the immigration section 102 in a committee hearing for the immigration customs enforcement legal program for the hiring of an additional 300 attorneys and related training and support cost. This amendment, that I join together with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in, likewise adds this amount of attorneys and adjudicators into this process to help us along.

The President supports reducing the lengthy backlog of immigration application processing as an important policy objective. Lengthy backlog and interminable processing delays are a disservice to the needs of businesses, keeps families needlessly separated, and undermines the integrity of the system. There is a bipartisan agreement that the Department of Homeland Security must catch up on the backlog it inherited from the INS. The former head of the immigration services, Eduardo Geary, in our own Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims,

submitted a proposal to end the backlog.

Work has been done, but more work has to be done. The report language for this bill earmarks $120 million for this purpose but it fails to add money where it is needed most by increasing the number of adjudicators who can process the backlogged applications.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a bipartisan amendment, as shown in the bipartisan effort of the work done by both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Together, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and myself now offer these additional dollars and focus on the need for adjudicators and on the need to help with backlog applicants.

Remember what I said. The numbers are increasing every single day and the backlog is increasing every single day. Citizens and LPRs, legal permanent residents, petitioning for nonimmediate relatives under the family preferences are waiting now several years. Mr. Chairman, we can do better. How can we do better? By supporting the Jackson-Lee/Conyers amendment.

For every single Member in this body who has a backlog in their office of those trying to do the right thing, this is the Homeland Security appropriation and what we need to do is understand immigration and fight terrorism. So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I need a clarification. The amendment is on page 2 line 9, and the offset comes on page 37 line 12. I do not understand what the objection is to the amendment in terms of out of order. I seek a clarification. What is the objection?

Mr. Chairman, let me just say I would hope that the chairman would be willing to waive the point of order. I consider this amendment so important that I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment without prejudice at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will have an opportunity to find common ground. Again, I raise the question to my colleagues, how many of you have been overwhelmed by the number of immigration cases in your office and overwhelmed by the fact that these are individuals seeking legal status.

I referred my colleagues to a report on immigration and naturalization petitions pending from 1997 to 2004. The most glaring point is that citizens and legal permanent residents petitioning for other not immediate relatives under the family preferences are often waiting several years for the petitions to be processed.

The normal cycle is 6 months.

This amendment is simple. It would provide relief by providing for funding for the hiring, clearance processes, training, office equipment, and support services for 300 additional full-time CIS adjudicators above the number of adjudicators presently employed by CIS in fiscal year 2005. This means that the backlog elimination plan as offered by the former Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre, could be further implemented, and, also, the report given by the ombudsman presented in the first annual ombudsman report, which talks about the enormous delay and the need for improving in Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Let me share with my colleagues the long time of waiting in a number of States where these regional service centers are. If one is attempting to get their immediate relatives into the country, in California the waiting started for processing of applications filed in 2003; Nebraska, 2002; Texas, 2002; Vermont, 2003. Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens, these applications are backlogged to July 19, 2001, out of California Regional Center; Nebraska, 2001, Regional Center; Texas, the regional center there, 2001; and Vermont, 1999. If one is a legal permanent resident and they are attempting to get their unmarried son and daughter and they are going to their Congressional office, their petition would be backlogged in California from April 6, 1998; Nebraska, April 13, 2001; Texas, October 30, 1998; and Vermont, January 4, 1999.

Even with the new Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we begin to look misdirections. We argue for legal immigration and legal processes, but yet when those individuals try to access the process, they are put in lines that are long and not moving, which frustrates the process, it frustrates our message.

We should promote legalization. We should promote access to legalization. We should promote those who come into this country to seek access to legalization in a legal way, in a way that falls under our laws. But if our processes are broken, then we are not in any way supporting our policies.

This amendment is simple. It provides $18 million to assure us that these 300 adjudicators can help move the process along. It also, I think, tracks very well with our intent as we have seen a number of legislative initiatives being offered. As I said, I have offered the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that deals with border protection, that deals with saving America's jobs, protecting immigrant women who are subject to violence. It also, I believe, provides dollars for border protection.

But the question of immigrant services is, even with the good works of this subcommittee, long overdue to improve. These 300 adjudicators can go a long way in improving that and answering the concerns of many of our colleagues when they go into their office and talk to their caseworkers and see the long list of cases dealing with immigrant concerns.

It also responds to those who are aging on the list. They are trying to secure access to citizenship and legalization. They have put in their paperwork, but they have been delayed. Long years of delay. Right now in my office I have an elderly gentleman who simply wants to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, put his hand up on his heart and salute the flag of the United States of

America. He has been waiting for years. He is aging. He is ill. He wants to return home to his motherland for some issues that he has to contend with, but he cannot move from the United States because we have been waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for his citizenship process to go forward.

These are the kinds of crises that Members face all over America. These are the kinds of crises that immigrants face who are seeking to follow the process legally.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment that would allow us to add 300 adjudicators to this process. I believe it is revenue neutral, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation of funds for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, by $18 million for the purpose of funding the hiring, clearance processes, training, office equipment and support services for 300 additional full-time CIS adjudicators above the number of adjudicators employed by CIS in Fiscal Year 2005.

The President supports reducing the lengthy backlog for immigration application processing as an important policy objective. Lengthy backlogs and interminable processing delays are a disservice to the needs of business, keep families needlessly separated, and undermine the integrity of the system.

There is bipartisan agreement that the Department of Homeland Security must catch up on the backlog it inherited from the INS. In fact, the report language for this bill earmarks $120 million for this purpose. But it fails to add money where it is needed most--for increasing the number of adjudicators who can process the backlogged applications.

Just recently, in a bipartisan agreement negotiated between the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, authorization was added during a Judiciary Markup for DHS to hire additional attorneys for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and 300 additional adjudicators for CIS. The amendment before us today is necessary to fund the additional adjudicators and the related training and support costs.

After forging that agreement, and passing it out of the Judiciary Committee, the majority tried to undercut that agreement by requiring that the adjudicators be paid for by an increase in immigration services fees. Simultaneously, they authorized explicit funding for the new ICE attorneys to be drawn out of the total DHS authorization.

These costs should not be born by immigrants. Immigrants should not have to subsidize the administrative failures of our immigration agency. It is an insult to require immigrants to keep paying more and more for slower and shoddier service. These funds should be appropriated by Congress, and Congress should demand better agency management of these funds.

I understand and appreciate the concern of those who would resist moving funds from enforcement functions to adjudications. I do not believe that a reduction of $15 million in the funds available for enforcement activities would significantly reduce the effectiveness of our enforcement programs. That amount of money would be sufficient, however, to support 300 additional adjudicators who are desperately needed for backlog reduction in benefits applications.

As to the discussion by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Ranking Member Obey, regarding his surprise over the submission of this amendment, let me clarify his assumption. This crucial amendment was not intended to broadside anyone. My immigration counsel and someone from Mr. Conyers' staff met with one of Mr. Obey's staffers last Friday afternoon to discuss amendments, and this amendment was brought up at that time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me.

I appreciate the dilemma that the chairman speaks to, particularly with respect to the very broad needs that we have.

I want to remind my colleagues that this is $18 million for 300 adjudicators specifically and that what we are talking about is trying to eliminate or bring down the existing 6 million benefit applications that were pending in 2003. As I read to my colleagues, no matter what part of the country they are in, whether they are under the California Regional Service Center, the Nebraska Regional Service Center, the Texas Regional Service Center, the Vermont Regional Service Center, their constituents are facing an enormous backlog. That raises a lot of havoc, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it speaks to security in this country when people are undocumented and do not have the legal papers that would allow them to stay in this country.

It helps young people to age out. One of the issues that we have dealt with is when parents who are trying to bring their children in and the children reach 21 before they are able to even be processed.

This is a crisis. And as one of my colleagues who stood on the floor of the House said, the Department of Homeland Security is huge. This is not an attempt to cause the resources out of the Office of Secretary to be diminished in strategic areas. But I can assure the Members I have great confidence in our new Secretary and those dollars can be effectively moved out of places that would not be damaging to his mission or his work or the work of the Department of Homeland Security.

What we are talking about is providing that $15 million for 300 adjudicators, and I would welcome the opportunity for us to be able to support this amendment and support this amendment in a way that realizes that it focuses on needs that many of our offices face all over America.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to attempt to surprise my colleagues. But since we are all equal Members of this body, I consider it my right to approach this issue from the perspective of the knowledge that I have.

I believe in collegiate work, and I believe in working with the collective bodies here, and I do not think I have ever risen to the floor to speak along those lines, but I will do it now. In order to focus on some of the issues that have come to my attention from Members across the aisle on the question of immigrant services, listening to members of the Department of Homeland Security talk about their efforts to ease the burden and knowing the importance of adjudicators which would help, in fact, to ease that burden, I hope that the allotment that has been spoken to both by the ranking member of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee will be designated for these important adjudicators.

The purpose of this amendment is valuable, and I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I viewed it as a valuable amendment. I hope that as we move forward that I will be able to see that those dollars allegedly that have been allocated, some $400 million, will go to easing some of these backlog dates.

I remind my colleagues, 1998, 2001, 2003, all scattered across these service centers. Why? Because they are overburdened. Fingerprints are lost. Applications are lost. So often we hear that in our constituency.

I think the process of appropriations is a complicated process. We attempt to do it in the spirit that is collegiate in this body. We attempt to do it with the knowledge that we have and the research that we do and the work with fellow staff members. If that cannot be done, we move forward.

I hope that we can improve the process because everybody is not in a whip meeting. So therefore I hope that we can improve the process and ensure that when we come to the floor these amendments that we have to be made in order, we have the understanding that they are for a purpose and a reasonable purpose.

Now, I will look forward, as we move toward conference, to monitoring this particular legislation to see whether or not it completely addresses the question of adjudicators, which is what this amendment is all about, the question of adjudicators.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues that if they are having a backlog in their office, I hope that they will consider that the intent of this amendment was not a malicious intent; it was an intent to work collegially and to help solve the problems, and I hope that we will continue in that spirit, to work toward solving problems, because that is what this particular body is all about, solving problems, Democrats and Republicans working together.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill is one of the most important bills this or any Congress will consider. The protections provided in this bill are designed to make our country safer and to prevent future terrorist acts from taking place inside the United States.

The Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has a difficult job. The gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), have done the best they could with the limited resources provided to them. While I do not agree with every choice they made, they certainly have my appreciation and gratitude for the job that they have done.

Nonetheless, Madam Speaker, I am very concerned with the inadequate funding levels provided to the Appropriations Committee and with the continuing lack of accountability on the part of the Bush administration.

Now, let us not kid ourselves today. Congress must provide more funding to protect our Nation from terrorist attacks. We should not be forced to choose among funding port security, air security, border security and first responders. These distinct areas of security are all necessary parts of an integrated whole, and none of them should be short-changed. But the reality is that the reckless fiscal policies enacted by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are short-changing these and other important programs.

The tax cuts enacted over the last 5 years, coupled with the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq, have drained the Federal Treasury to the point where even the fire grants that help our local fire departments prepare for the challenges they face every day will be severely cut in this bill.

Madam Speaker, that is the wrong choice. Many of my Republican friends will claim that the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee did the best they could with the allocation provided to them. That argument does not tell the whole truth. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to have it both ways. They want to criticize the low funding level in this bill, but they do not want to criticize the fiscal policies that have put us in the hole we are in today.

I know that my colleagues on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will describe this bill in more detail, but I want to highlight a few key programs.

Again, I am disappointed that this bill short-changes the fire grant program. It is one of the most successful programs in the country and it deserves to be increased and not cut.

I am also disappointed that this bill fails to live up to the promises made in the Intelligence Reform Act, enacted just in December. This bill short-changes border security, a key component of the 9/11 Commission report that was released last year.

The silver lining, thin as it is, Madam Speaker, is that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), were able to increase some funding for port security and transit security, and I am pleased that this bill also directs the Homeland Security Department to take concrete actions to protect this country.

For too long the administration has refused to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable for its actions, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), included provisions to make the Department accountable, and to provide the necessary oversight of the Department that has been lacking since its creation.

For example, this bill will impose penalties on the TSA Administrator if a requirement to increase the screening of air cargo is not implemented by the end of the fiscal year.

Madam Speaker, for too long the Bush administration has refused to provide general oversight on the Department of Homeland Security. This fits the pattern of a complete lack of accountability on the part of this administration. From the Education Department paying for its own propaganda with taxpayer funds, to the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to the wasting of billions of dollars in Iraqi reconstruction contracts, this administration has made mistake after mistake after mistake.

Yet the Republican Congress does not want to do anything. Ask no question, demand no answers. Under this Republican leadership, the legislative branch of government is barely a twig. And so, Madam Speaker, we see the same things happening in the Department of Homeland Security. After publicly supporting a dramatic increase in the number of air marshals, the last two Bush budgets actually proposed cuts in funding for this important program.

Yesterday at the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) testified at length how the Coast Guard refuses to provide detailed plans for their Deepwater program and how the only way to get their attention is to withhold funds for this program. The same is true with the TSA's implementation of cargo screening measures and the deployment of explosive detection technologies at airports around the country.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this bill attempts finally to force some kind of accountability from the administration.

But, finally, Madam Speaker, I want to say something about the rule today. I am pleased that it is an open rule. There have been 30 rules considered so far this year, and only three of those rules have been open. That is a batting average of 100, which will get you kicked off of any self-respecting Little League team. This is no way to run the people's House.

I am also disappointed with the way this rule jeopardizes much of the oversight language written by this bill, by exposing it to points of order. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) worked in a bipartisan way, as they should on an issue like this. This rule undercuts that bipartisanship.

Madam Speaker, for the past 3 years the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has been this body's only source of oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier this year the Committee on Homeland Security was established. This committee just reported out its first authorization bill, which will be considered later this week.

Madam Speaker, it is not good policy to strip out the oversight language provided by the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), because of a turf fight between two committees.

The Committee on Homeland Security will have a chance to bring forth its bill this week, and in the future I hope will provide the necessary oversight of the Department so that the Committee on Appropriations does not have to do two jobs; but we should not strike this language from this bill today just because the authorizing committee is unhappy. To do so would be irresponsible, and that is why the rule today should be defeated.

I would say to my friends, especially on the other side of the aisle, that it is a little bit frustrating to hear them talk about accountability on one hand and to support a rule that strips all the accountability from this bill.

We heard last night in the Committee on Rules of the fact that the Homeland Security Department has failed to provide Congress with required reports. We have heard about how deadlines have been missed, one after another. There needs to be accountability.

It is clear that this bill, if this rule passes, does not hold up to that standard of accountability, and I would like to think that the Members of Congress, since we had a role in creating this agency, would want to hold this committee accountable.

This is about our safety. This is about protecting the people of this country, and it is clear that we need to rein in the people over at the Department of Homeland Security.

So, Madam Speaker, I would say in closing that I have great respect for the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo). I think they provided the Committee on Rules last night with a good bill that had some teeth in it, that would hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable, but apparently, the Committee on Rules last night decided to just throw all that away.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Well, I appreciate my colleague from Texas talking about the fact this is a good bill. I agree with him. If it is such a good bill, why did the Committee on Rules allow half the bill to be stripped out?

During the testimony before the Committee on Rules, I think everybody, Democrat and Republican, on that committee praised the work of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo) and talked about the fact that we do need to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. I did not hear any dissension during the discussion in the Committee on Rules, and we also think it was a good bill.

Yet, here we are with a rule that would basically strip half of the most important provisions out of the bill. I do not think that is very responsible.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

I am not proud what we are doing here today. I mean, this is a sham; and I would say to the gentleman that the choice is clear: you either support the chairman and you either support holding the Department of Homeland Security accountable or you do not.

The way the Committee on Rules came up with this rule, which subjects all these very important provisions to points of order, makes it impossible to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. I do not know how anybody who sat in that Committee on Rules meeting last night, all who agreed that what is going on in the Department of Homeland Security right now is very troubling, missing deadlines, not fulfilling requirements that this Congress has asked them to fulfill, I do not know how they could express solidarity with what the chairman and the ranking member were saying and then support a rule like this which undercuts all the accountability. I mean, this is wrong.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This is an incredibly frustrating moment for many Members in this Chamber. The gentleman from Texas talks about the incredible partnership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the bipartisanship and their desire to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable and to make sure that we are all protected. Then he is urging that we support a rule that would basically cut all the provisions in the bill that would hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. He is urging we support a rule that would basically obliterate the bipartisan agreement that we have come to here.

Every Member of this House gets on an airplane probably at least twice a week. And when you look at the state of airline security, when you look at the deadlines that have been missed, when you look at the reports that they have failed to respond to, you have to ask yourself, why are we not doing a better job in holding them accountable and making sure they keep their deadlines?

Again, in the Committee on Rules last night the gentleman from Texas seemed to agree with all these provisions that were in this bill to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable, and now he is on the floor telling us to support a rule that would strip the bill of all these provisions. It just does not make any sense to me. Why do we not do this right?

We know what has to be done, let us just do it. Instead, you are taking a good bill and you are just tearing it apart, and it just does not make any sense to me. We need to do this right. We cannot afford to get this wrong.

So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to appreciate the fact that we have a bipartisan bill here, to appreciate the fact that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo and members of this committee worked tirelessly to make sure we that hold this agency accountable. It needs to be held accountable. Nobody disagrees with that. Do not destroy that by voting for this rule. Vote down this rule and let us go back and report another rule immediately, one that respects the agreement that has been reached here.

Mr. Speaker, I will also be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the Obey amendment that was not made in order by the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment does several things. First, it funds 500 additional border patrol agents, 600 additional immigration investigators, and 4,000 additional detention beds so that the increases called for in the Intelligence Reform Act are fully funded. It also funds the grant program authorizing the REAL ID Act instead of imposing a costly unfunded mandate on our States.

This amendment fully offsets the $500 million in additional funding for this border enforcement and the REAL ID Act by capping at $138,176 the tax cut people making over $1 million this year will receive.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership likes to talk about making this country more secure and about protecting our borders from terrorists, yet they refuse to provide the funds necessary to do this. They also like to brag about how they would never impose an unfunded mandate on States and local governments, yet just 2 weeks ago they did just that.

We have a chance to fix this today by voting for the Obey amendment. It is very disturbing that the Republican leadership of this House would deny Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to make Americans safer.

As always, I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the homeland security appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from adequately protecting our borders and from stopping the major financial burden we are placing on States to implement the REAL ID Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we would have an opportunity to fully fund protection of the border and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

We had a great opportunity in the Committee on Rules last night to do something good and get it right, and they blew it, so vote ``no'' on the rule as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 278 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today is a fair and completely open rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides that under the rules of the House the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. It waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill except as specified in the resolution.

Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This bill, sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, funds an array of Federal programs aimed at securing the Nation against terrorist attacks, including Customs and border protection, transportation security, and Federal assistance to State and local first responders.

In addition, it funds some additional and vitally important missions of agencies that were included in the Democratic of Homeland Security when it was formed 2 years ago, such as disaster relief. This carefully considered legislation provides almost $31 billion for operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security, an increase of $1.37 billion above fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, excluding $2.5 billion in advance appropriations for BioShield and $1.3 billion above the President's request.

It also provides $1 billion in mandatory budget authority for programs in the Department. Some of the other initiatives that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and his subcommittee have funded through this bill on behalf of the American public include: $7.5 billion to the Coast Guard, who are called today to defend our coast from the threat of terrorism;

$6.9 billion for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, including $4.9 billion for enforcement activities and assets; $458 million for computer automated import and export tracking

functions; $348 million for maintenance of air and marine vessels; and $93 million for facilities construction and maintenance;

$5.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including $2.5 billion for aviation, passenger and baggage screening; $983 million for aviation security direction and enforcement; and $36 million for surface transportation security;

$4.5 billion for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including $3.1 billion for immigration enforcement, detention and removal; and $699 million for Federal air marshals;

$3.6 billion overall for terrorism preparedness grants, including $750 million for formula-based grants to States; $1.2 billion in discretionary grants for high-threat urban ports, port security and public transportation security; $600 million for fire prevention and control grants; $200 million for training exercises and technical assistance grants; and $180 million for emergency management performance grants;

$3 billion for emergency preparedness and response, including $2 billion for disaster relief; $861 million for information analysis and infrastructure protection; and $422 million for the Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, including $390 million for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology known as US-VISIT program; $14 million for the NEXUS/SENTRI program; and $7 million for the free and secure trade programs.

In addition to providing these much needed funds throughout this legislation, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and his committee have also focused sharply on the need for strong oversight and Congressional review of how the taxpayers' money is being spent wisely and efficiently on homeland security.

This much needed emphasis on oversight of the efficiency and effectiveness on how money is spent on defending our homeland will ensure that the money is spent wisely. It will also limit waste and abuse so that the programs that are truly needed to protect the safety of American citizens will have the funds when they are needed and the ability to operate those plans.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and this open rule. I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard work in developing this legislative product.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the opportunity to be here on behalf of this rule today, as my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), points out, is all taking place as a result of the hard work that took place not only between the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo); but, really, it was from a lot of work that has taken place over a long period of time, working with the administration, working with the Homeland Security Department.

I must confess that I believe that we should have stronger oversight. I think we agreed on that last night in the Committee on Rules. We are also of the belief that the new leadership at homeland security will continue in this very important task of working with not only the administration but working with our appropriators, our authorizers, the people who are very interested in making sure that we move in a collaborative effort forward for homeland security.

So I am proud of what the bill is today. I think that what the subcommittee did was good work. We are going to get it on the floor today. We are going to debate it. We are going to make it better, and I am proud of the progress that we are making.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman makes some very good points about not only his vision and ideas about jurisdictional issues, but I would say to my colleagues today that there is some disappointment on behalf of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our great chairman, who worked very diligently, faithfully not only with homeland security but also others in this Congress who are attempting to make sure that Congress not only has a say about the money that is appropriated but an expectation back from the administration and homeland security about the worthiness of what we believe public policy should be. I think this leadership, I think the Committee on Rules last night heard the argument and were very hopeful that we can reach resolution.

Today, we are going to debate this bill. Today, we are going to pass this rule, and we are going to pass this bill, and it is going to empower not only the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) but also the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to continue, to go back and do their work, to go back, yes, to the table once again with homeland security and to talk about how important it is that the Homeland Security Department provide information on a timely basis.

It is important for us to continue providing reassurance to the American people that the philosophy, that the plans that are in place and moving forward will meet the continuing threat needs against this country.

What I would say is that we are not going to give up on the process. I do not know that it is perfect. I expressed some reservations myself yesterday in the Committee on Rules about things which I supported, but I believe that our chairman and the ranking member are forthright about their need, their desire to make sure that we will continue working with Department of Homeland Security, even when we have the disagreements. This is a strong sense of the support in Congress that we have for the appropriators to go back and continue to do their work.

So I am proud of what we are doing. I do not think it is a sham. I understand completely why we are here today. I think it will be very clear when we vote today, and it will be a strong signal back to the American public that we intend to be serious about not only the threats that are placed against this country but also those avenues that make sure that our border security continues to provide on a moving-forward basis the ability that we have to meet the threat that is placed against this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I think we just saw an articulate discussion about how people do need to work together here in Washington and how the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and

our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), worked together in their desire to make sure that Homeland Security is listening and to make sure it is a collaborative effort. We are going to keep after it. We are going to keep doing the right things that will ensure that the American public understands and gets not only every single dollar's worth, not a penny more, but every single dollar's worth of what is paid for that will secure this country, and that involves the efficiency and effectiveness of Homeland Security.

We had a discussion yesterday about the leadership of Homeland Security; how we know it is brand new, how we know the daunting challenge that is ahead of placing together all of these organizations and making them work well together, having them under the same mission statement and making sure that they are funded properly, making sure we hear back from them, making sure they hear back from us.

Really, what this debate is about today is that we are not sure that Homeland Security is effectively listening to us, the policies that we would intend for them to place before the American public; to implement those and to make sure safety and security is taken care of properly, and then, lastly, the information back that will allow the ranking member and our great chairman a chance to philosophically address those changing parameters and threats against this country.

I believe that this administration will be serious about it. I believe the new leadership of Homeland Security in their wisdom and ability to work more carefully as time moves on will answer these questions and they will provide those things that are necessary.

But we just saw a prime example of the kind of steady hand, proper leadership that exists here in the House of Representatives, and I am proud of that. I am proud of this on both sides of the aisle. I think we will continue working together, and I think that is what this legislation will prove worthy of today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We have had a great opportunity to air out our differences today, our hopes and expectations about what we think the brighter and better future will be for the relationship that we have with Homeland Security, and today is part of that process.

I would like to once again reiterate my support for Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo, but I would also like to extend to the members of the Homeland Security Subcommittee my thanks for a job well done. They have spent a lot of time not only traveling around the country, with interaction and meeting with very important people who are focused on a daily basis on our homeland security, and so I want to thank those Republicans who are members of this subcommittee: The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Crenshaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), and the vice chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). It has taken a lot of their hard work, along with our friends on the other side of the aisle to make sure that the legislation would get to the floor today.

I would like to congratulate the chairman of the full committee also, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for his hand in making sure this works.

Amendment offered by Mr. Sessions

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on both the amendment and the resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his cooperation and good work in bringing this bill to the House. This bill, in its current form, represents a substantial improvement over the President's budget request.

My comments are related to the bill as it stands. I am not sure, after all the points of order are made today, what will remain in the bill; but as the bill stands, there are many good things in this bill, including better funding for border enforcement and separate programs for transit and port security grants. I appreciate that the chairman worked with us to toughen up the bill on air cargo screening, chemical plant security, and privacy safeguards.

The Department has a long way to go in these areas. However, this bill pushes them to improve operations and better secure our Nation. I would especially like to point out the air cargo screening provisions in this bill. One of these provisions penalizes TSA for not complying with last year's law which required a threefold air cargo screening increase. Another provision mandates that TSA utilize their equipment to screen air cargo during the downtime in checked baggage screening. This should help raise the screened percentage of air cargo even further. Last, the bill includes $30 million for three air cargo screening pilot programs, two at passenger operations and one at an all-cargo operation.

The report accompanying this bill directs the Secretary to ensure that all DHS contracts with companies that collect personal information, such as ChoicePoint, will require the companies to have security procedures to properly notify individuals if their personal information is lost or stolen. The personal data of hundreds of thousands of people have been compromised in recent months. For 49 States, there is no requirement for companies to notify the affected people. We should require notification government-wide, and this provision takes an important step in the right direction.

The bill also demands that the Department get its act together to develop proper standards and processes for designating the information as ``security-sensitive.'' Today, TSA has no meaningful procedures to designate ``security sensitive'' documents. This has led, I believe, to TSA withholding information from the public that should be disclosed. This bill directs the Department to limit the number of people who can designate such information to establish internal controls to audit these designations.

I do have reservations about some parts of this bill, especially the funding levels for fire grants and the State homeland security formula grants. We will have an amendment relating to fire grants later. I happen to be in probably a small minority who thinks it is a mistake to distribute a portion of the State formula grant based on risk and vulnerability versus population.

Let us be clear. The urban initiative grant is distributed on a discretionary basis. My observation over the last several years, when trying to get information from the Department on how they made those judgments, we rarely get good answers; at periods of time, no answers; and at other times, very ineffective answers. I have no problem with whatever the judgment of the Congress is in adjusting the minimum grant that goes to particular States. However, I think when we assume that this Department has the capacity to make risk judgments on allocating funds to all 57 States and territories, I think we overestimate their capacity to make such judgments.

They have made mistakes in the past, and I just do not think they have developed the needed expertise to make the kinds of judgments we are assuming they can. If they had that capacity, then I think we might be headed in the right direction; but there is no evidence that they have that capacity today.

In conclusion, however, I must say that I think we must measure this homeland security bill by asking whether the bill helps close the gaps that exist today. I think the bill does that. I think it makes substantial improvements in how the Department would operate, and I am proud to support the bill as it stands today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), another distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time and I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The concern of the committee to get a rebaselining of the Coast Guard construction program is not something that has just happened recently. I think we have been working on this for a year and a half, 2 years, something like that, to get the rebaselining. It is not a last-second whim that has occurred, but something that we have been concerned about for an extended period of time and have not gotten a response.

Mr. Chairman, I and others offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment increases the funding for the fire grant program by $50 million, $25 million for the SAFER program, and $25 million for the regular grant program. With the $25 million added to the SAFER program, it would be funded at $75 million, or $10 million above last year's funding.

With the increase to the regular fire grant program, it would be funded at $575 million, unfortunately still a $75 million cut from last year's level. If we had more funding, and more offsets, we would have added it to this program.

I might add that whatever the problems are with the larger local grant program, this is a program that has worked very efficiently and effectively. It is a proven successful program, and grant decisions are made on the basis of independent board review.

The needs of our fire departments are great, and our Federal funding for the fire grant program has decreased in recent years and, actually, as a population that has grown, the number of firefighters nationwide has fallen.

Firefighters still lack basic equipment. The number of firefighters with proper breathing gear and protective clothing has not substantially improved since 9/11.

In 2003, Federal fire grant funding was $746 million; this year it is $715 million. This bill, with the amendment, would increase that amount to $650 million. The offset funding for the new personnel system would be decreased by $20 million, but still would have an increase of $17 million, or 47 percent under this mark.

What this amendment does is it is fully funded in offsets and makes minor adjustments in the chairman's bill but, in my judgment, will result in better fire department capabilities in our local communities; and I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me just simply thank the chairman for his support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I move to strike the last word rather than speaking directly to the amendment is because I have mixed emotions. I think the problem the gentleman from New Jersey presents to us is one of the most important and most profound ones we face in the whole question of homeland security.

His amendment bothers me for two reasons: One, I think there are real problems where the money is coming from; and, secondly, I am concerned that we are transferring this problem from the Federal Government to the State governments. Because dealing with chemical security and the security of chemical plants is truly a national problem and not one that should be the ultimate problem of State governments.

The Department, in my judgment, has been incredibly slow in dealing with the problem. The Congress has been slow in dealing with the problem. A year ago we provided $3 million to the Department for a study on whether they should require vulnerability assessments and security plans from the chemical plants. The study has not occurred. We do have language in this bill that urges them to do more in the next year. I hope they listen to that more than what they did to the provision of $3 million last year.

But I would suggest to my friend from New Jersey that the format that we should be following is really what we did in the Maritime Transportation Security Act as it relates to ports. What we required in that bill was for ports to do vulnerability assessments and produce security plans themselves,

and that is what the major chemical plants in this country should be doing. We should not be assessing them, they should be developing their own vulnerability assessments and security plans. And then, as in the Maritime Security Act, where the Coast Guard assesses the plans, that is what we should be doing with chemical plants.

The bulk of the responsibility for implementing those security plans should be with the chemical companies, not with the State. It should not be with the Federal Government, in my judgment, let alone with the States. And I am concerned that we are putting up the assumption that this is now becoming a responsibility we are delegating from the Federal Government to the States.

So the gentleman is absolutely right. This is one of the biggest vulnerabilities that we have. The Department has not been paying attention to it. The Congress has not been willing to deal with the issue of whether this is something we want simply the Federal Government to do or whether we should be requiring the chemical plants, at least the major ones, to have the vulnerability assessments and the security plans and then they submit them to the Department for their evaluation. From there, we can move as to how you remedy the security plans and how you make judgment on the funding you need for local people who might have to respond to an emergency.

So I have mixed emotions about this amendment. I have problems with their premise with the offset and the basic delegation to the States, but the amendment raises, I think, one of the most crucial problems we face in homeland security. And to the other gentleman from New Jersey, who talked about a comprehensive bill he was introducing, I think that is the direction we should be going.

Mr. Chairman, in the supplemental bill that we just passed, there was $36 million that had been appropriated for the northern border which the Department was not spending, and with the cooperation of the chairman, we inserted specific language telling the Department to spend the $36 million on the northern border.