Hurricane Katrina Emergency Relief CDBG Flexibility Act of 2005

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 thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is a bill that is broadly, probably unanimously, supported, or overwhelmingly; and it reflects a good deal of conversation. We appreciate the willingness of the Members on the majority side to come together. Obviously, there continue to be some differences between us on some policy issues; but in terms of responding to this emergency, those are not things that should get in the way. I think both sides showed a spirit of cooperation. The majority was very helpful, and we have legislation that can be widely supported.

But, once again, the problem is what it does is good, but what it does not do is not so good. In particular in this case we ought to be substantially increasing the CDBG funding. Now, we are not the Committee on Appropriations. We do have an authorizing power.

Giving the people the ability to spend on more things but not more money is better than nothing, but not nearly good enough. CDBG needs the kinds of things that CDBG does, both for the larger communities of 50,000 or more, called ``entitlement cities,'' but also what we should be doing here is providing to the Governors of the affected States funding which they could use in their CDBG programming, because they get one-third of it, for those communities that are in areas of less than 50,000 population, that is, they are the Small Communities Program, and we should be increasing the funding there. I hope at an appropriate time we will do that, because these communities are going to need a great deal of help.

The CDBG program is one of the logical ways to do it. We know how to spend here. It is a program which has had virtually no scandal, to my knowledge. It is a program which works well, and simply expanding this existing funding mechanism would be one very good way to get money to people very quickly in ways they know how to spend.

But I also should note, as the gentlewoman from California noted, I guess in some ways those of us who have been advocates of an active government role in the housing and community development areas can feel somewhat more supported today than we often are on this floor, because we have now had three bills in a row which take advantage of the existence of federally funded programs which have a lot of critics around here.

We have had proposals from the administration this year, from HUD, to dismantle in their existing form both the voucher program and the CDBG program. There was a proposal to block grant the voucher program. Block granting, by the way is what people do to programs they do not like. I have been here a long time. Nobody in my memory has ever proposed block granting a Federal program which he or she supported.

What we had basically was an effort to cut back on the voucher program. What we are doing now is taking the concept of the voucher program and greatly expanding it, through FEMA funding; but, yes, it is a voucher program that has not only proven its worth but is a lifeline at a time when we need one. It would have been a bad thing if we would have had to invent such a program right now because of all the startup problems you would have.

Similarly, as the gentlewoman from California pointed out, this administration proposed the most hair-brained reorganization of the Community Development Block Grant program imaginable. They took the Community Development Block Grant, which aids communities, they took the Community Services Block Grant, which deals with poverty, they took the Community Development Financial Institutions, which deals with economic development in cities, and decided to put them all in the Commerce Department.

CDBG and CSBG have a particular impact on poverty. I think what happened was they had a contest over there in the administration, maybe one of those lotteries they have when they try to help 1 percent of the people that need housing, and they decided to find the Federal Department that had the least orientation towards helping poor people, so they could take these programs that help poor people and give it to that Department.

So we took it out of HUD, and we took it out of the Health and Human Services Department, and they took programs out of Labor, and they sent them to the Department of Commerce, I think on the grounds that the Department of Commerce really did not know enough about poverty, and this is a way for them to learn. I am all for educating people, but not by giving them Federal programs as their blocks.

So what we have today is an affirmation in this bill of the importance of the Community Development Block Grant program as a proven mechanism for getting aid out.

Again, I want to say, and I suppose this will cause a little friction, maybe some people will have to disassociate themselves, but I do appreciate the difference between the members of our committee on the majority side in their approach to these things and the administration. Unlike the administration, which had as its intention dismantling these things, and we, I think were not going to act on that, we are here trying to build on them.

Of course, there is always room for improvement. We have been having some conversations about how to improve the voucher program, how to streamline it, how to make it more efficient. But substantially diminishing it would have been a mistake. So I am very pleased.

Of course, that was also the case with rural housing, because one of the things I hope we will do in the near future, in the next few months, this year or next year, is to go to the rural housing program and take some steps that will preserve that as a source of affordable housing.

There are trends and various complications that we do not need to go into here now, which, if not confronted, we could lose that housing. So we have a recognition today of the importance of the concept of the voucher program. We have a recognition of the importance of the Community Development Block Grant mechanism in delivering services with Federal funding. We have a recognition of the importance of preserving and using that rural housing stock. I hope all of those will go forward.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to repeat again, these steps are useful. They leave us with a lot to do. The problem is that the Bush administration at this point has zero proposals that will respond to the longer-term needs of these affected communities. I am told these proposals are coming, and I do not doubt some of my colleagues will be coming forward with them.

But we did have a speech from the President of the United States in which he outlined his plans; and the one I looked at very closely was his housing plan, his housing plan consisting of an effort to find existing Federal properties that the Federal Government does not want or need and have a lottery, so a very small percentage, 1 or 2 percent of the people in need, can get Federal property and zero dollars from any source that we control to help make them into housing. And that, let us be clear, that is the sum total of the President's proposal for the longer term. It is wholly inadequate.

We have made a step here today. I look forward to our being back on this floor in coming months to talk about a broader set of proposals for community development, for housing and for other things; and I hope at the time we will keep in mind the importance of building on and improving these existing programs and continue to reject the kind of radical dismantling that the administration has proposed, and instead to try and have their return to the 19th century with the concept of homesteading, which is inappropriate, inadequate, and ill thought out.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, today we stand here in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, considering uses for the community development block grant to address the housing and infrastructure crisis wrought upon us by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Madam Speaker, it is ironic because it was not more than a few months ago that I stood with my colleagues, opposed to the administration's attempt to block grant CDBG to the States and to move CDBG and 17 other programs to the Commerce Department. I am so pleased that did not happen.

Today, based upon the proven merits of this program, based on the effectiveness and consistency of a statutory mission, based on the need to quickly and effectively provide relief, the administration is now looking to CDBG, and I support that. H.R. 3896 attempts to make two major temporary changes to the community development block grant. H.R. 3896 seeks to weigh the public services cap, which is currently set at 15 percent, and which I support, that is, with a caveat, and H.R. 3896 seeks to waive the requirement for public hearings concerning the use of CDBG funds, and I am concerned about that.

Madam Speaker, at the core of CDBG is its original statutory goal to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and suitable living environments and the expansion of economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.

When I traveled to Baton Rouge and New Orleans, I toured the devastation, the homelessness and the desperation that had been created by this disaster. This hurricane certainly exacerbated the poverty and lack of education, lack of economic opportunity that has plagued New Orleans and surrounding areas throughout the gulf, specifically the African-American population.

This hurricane has shown a virtual spotlight on problems that are emblematic of inner cities all across this country. I spoke to people about their needs and their hopes for their immediate future. The one thing that was consistent, the one thing that was unchanging, was the determination of people to return home.

Madam Speaker, community development block grant is a proven program that provides critical infrastructure resources, and it is a program that can help Katrina victims in their stated goal of returning home. CDBG is one of the best mechanisms that we can employ to help in the reconstruction of the gulf region, because it puts money in the hands of the community and the city government, and they know what to do with it. Furthermore, it is directed to rebuild critical infrastructure, which is a step or step one in reestablishing community. But, again, that amounts at best to flexibility and at worse a little more than a legislative process, exercise.

H.R. 3896 provides no additional resources to the directly affected areas. Rather, this bill simply creates programmatic waivers which will allow flexibility but not expansion.

Let me just say this: We all agree at this critical moment that CDBG is a great program. Many of us have thought to expand CDBG, because it is such a great program. This program helps large cities, small towns, communities, not only to repair its infrastructure but to provide services that cannot be provided in any other way because there are no other resources to provide these services.

My colleague from Louisiana just identified a number of those services, helping people with down payment, helping with child care, helping with other programs. I would have hoped that we could have expanded this program. We could deal with the identified needs, not only of New Orleans but the other parishes and the surrounding communities and with Mississippi, Gulfport, and Alabama, but because CDBG is proven to be able to help move whole cities and communities from communities and cities where they have disproportionate poverty that they have no resources to deal with.

I am pleased that we have it here today so that we can lift the cap, and they will have a little bit more flexibility. Ladies and gentlemen, I want this to be a lesson for us, a lesson for us all, that we should not only fight to maintain CDBG in HUD and not transfer it out to Department of Commerce, where we would get people who do not know what to do with it, do not know how to administer it and would only mess it up; but that we would expand it

so that we would have the resources to deal with housing crises, because this is a great program to deal with housing needs in every city and every town across this country that is eligible for it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our ranking member, to further support

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), that I agree with him that there should be a mechanism by which people who have goods and services to donate to these small towns and these parishes, there should be a way by which they should be able to do that; and I would support such an effort. Because as I traveled throughout my community, in the churches where we talked about this disaster, I had many of the parishioners say to me that they owned land in Louisiana or in Texas and they would like to donate their land for the siting of manufactured housing or even for RVs or something of that nature. They were not sure, but they knew they wanted to put the land to use for the victims of the hurricane. So I think we should find a way by which to do that.

In addition, CDBG is such a good program that I could not help but wonder as I sat here whether or not some of the money that may not be well spent in FEMA should be transferred in some way over to CDBG. Because, again, I wonder about those persons who lost their homes and all of their furnishings and they have no flood insurance. They will receive FEMA assistance of $26,000, some of which will go toward rent, and then it will run out, but the house is still left there, to be rehabilitated if it can be, or to be rebuilt and furnishings need to be purchased, et cetera, et cetera. It seems to me that CDBG would be a wonderful way by which to do rehabbing of housing and reestablishing of housing and homes.

I am just wondering aloud and hopeful that we will all give it some very, very deep thought, about how we can truly be of assistance to these victims long after the FEMA assistance is no longer operative or the Red Cross assistance is no longer operative.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.