Secure Border Initiative Financial Accountability Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution

1054, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today for the consideration of the fiscal 2007 conference agreement for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I bring good news for all Americans who want to see our borders are secure from those who are crashing those borders. We are ending the age-old catch-and-release program that has allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our country. You will hear more about that during this debate today, I hope.

The recent anniversaries of the 9/11 attacks and the 2005 hurricane disasters keep us focused on why we are here today: to protect our citizens and our homeland from any threat to our society and our economy, be it terrorism or natural catastrophe. The funding in this conference agreement ensures the Department of Homeland Security can address the perils that face our communities and reduce our vulnerability to them.

The fiscal 2007 conference agreement provides a total of $34.8 billion for the Department, including an additional $1.8 billion in emergency funds devoted to border security. The total provided is $2.3 billion above the current year and $2.7 billion above what the President asked us for, when you exclude disaster relief funding for Katrina.

This includes more than $21.3 billion for border security and immigration enforcement; $4.34 billion for port, container, and cargo security; $3.4 billion for first responders across the country; $6.4 billion for transportation security; $1.4 billion for research, development, and deployment of innovative technologies; and $1.8 billion to protect national and critical infrastructure.

Five years ago our Nation suffered its most devastating terrorist attack. Since that tragic day, a vigorous national debate over our vulnerabilities, fueled by historic levels of illegal immigration, has resulted in one very clear conclusion: we must do all we can to gain control over our borders and our coastlines to preserve the sovereignty and integrity of our immigration and preserve the strength of our economy.

This conference agreement will provide the resources and direction to build upon the Department's progress and transform our approach to border security from a fragmented, uncoordinated effort into a truly integrated system capable of producing results.

This includes a staggering $1.2 billion to secure the borders with a system of fencing, a system of infrastructure, a system of technology, 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, 6,700 new additional detention bed space for those caught, 650 additional CBP officers, and over $1.7 billion for the procurement of aircraft and vessels to patrol those borders. This massive infusion of moneys will accelerate the Department's goal of obtaining operational control of these borders in less than 5 years, a goal that has become an unquestioned necessity since 9/11.

I want to emphasize that with all these resources we are pouring into this effort will come accountability. We are requiring bi-monthly status reports on the Department's performance and their expenditure of funds on border security. We want to know what is happening every 2 weeks. We are withholding $950 million until the Department provides a detailed border security expenditure plan. They won't get the money until we see the plan. I believe in planning your work and working your plan.

And we are requiring, in bill language, strategic plans for the Secure Border Initiative and port and cargo security. We are absolutely committed to holding the Department accountable and providing the American people with the results that they are demanding of us.

In addition to border security and immigration enforcement, the conference report balances resources across other critical areas of homeland security including:

One, almost $900 million to prevent weapons of mass destruction from entering the country. These funds will enable DHS to speed the deployment of radiation detectors and significantly enhance screening for vehicles and cargo.

Two, $2.5 billion to fund and reform FEMA. The funding and direction contained in the conference agreement will ensure that we do not repeat the errors of 2005, by putting in place the planning, assessment, training, logistics, and communications to enable DHS to prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism and natural disasters.

Three, $6.4 billion for transportation security. The recent disruption of the terrorist plot in London reminds us that transportation security remains a top priority. This report includes critical resources for new cutting-edge technologies to strengthen protection from all modes of travel as well as to increase the capabilities of the Federal air marshals. While we are much safer than 5 years ago, we must sustain that effort to anticipate and defeat threats to our transportation system.

In addition to these significant levels of funding, the conference agreement includes several legislative provisions that will fortify our homeland security, including legislation to criminalize for the first time the construction or financing of a tunnel across or under the U.S. border; two, legislation that significantly strengthens and improves FEMA, a whole new authorizing law; and, thirdly, breakthrough legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to regulate security at chemical facilities across the land.

Our homeland security needs are both numerous and they are complex, but I believe this conference report will make a major contribution towards those needs. So I urge my colleagues to support the agreement.

Before I sit down this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay special tribute to our staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked long, hard, and laboriously over these last several months. I want to especially thank Michelle Mrdeza, who could not be with us in these final days because of an illness in her family which required her to be absent. But she is retiring from this body. She has been a great servant of the public on this committee for a number of years. Her service has been invaluable and expert, and we will miss her terribly. I want to thank Stephanie Gupta too and the staff of the subcommittee and staff on both sides of the aisle for the great work that they have done.

And, finally, I want to say a word about Marty Sabo, ranking member of this subcommittee, who will be finishing 27 years of service in this body and to the Nation when he leaves office in January seeking greener pastures. This man is a personal friend of mine and all of ours, but he is also an expert on budgetary matters and has become an expert on the homeland security efforts of the country. A huge void will exist on the horizon of this body when Marty Sabo leaves this body.

I cannot say enough in tribute to this man. He has been a helpmate to me and the subcommittee and the country on this bill for a number of years now, as well as before that we served in the same capacities on the Transportation Subcommittee; and of course, as you know, he was chairman of the Budget Committee for a number of years sometime past.

A great public servant whose work is now soon to be finished in this body, but I am confident that his record will stand for the ages. Very few Members of Congress can retire from this body with a greater sense of accomplishment of greatness than our friend, Marty Sabo. The gentleman will be missed in this body.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

That is correct, except for the new authorizing languages that are in the bill. You are correct, except for the newly authorized items that are in this bill.

That is correct.

I thank the gentleman for his very, very kind remarks; and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has been extremely helpful on this bill, as all of the others.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the very distinguished chairman of the authorizing Committee on Homeland Security in the House, whose cooperation on this bill has been fabulous, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, both gentlemen are correct. WHTI is vital to our homeland security, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring it is put in place.

The conference report requires the Departments of Homeland Security and State to implement WHTI no later than 3 months after the security requirements are met or by June 1, 2009, whichever is earlier.

We urge DHS and State to quickly develop the PASS card technology, card readers, and procedures to enable the earliest possible deployment of the system at our sea and land ports of entry.

Again, let me make this clear. The conference report does not force a delay upon WHTI. It is up to DHS and State to make sure the program works securely and is implemented as soon as possible, which can and should be in accordance with the original WHTI deadline of January 1, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very valuable member of this subcommittee, hardworking, and a conferee on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very valuable member of the subcommittee and of the conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), another very important member of this subcommittee who has helped us enormously.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee in the House.

If the gentleman will yield, I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey that this is an important program; and I can assure him that, should we receive information that the Coast Guard has addressed our concerns, we will give the program favorable consideration in the future.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who is Chairman of the Emergency Management Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this year has been a difficult year for this bill, as they all are. We did not have all of the allocation that we could have used. However, I think we judiciously have spent the moneys that were allocated to us.

There is no more important chore that the Congress has, in my judgment, than to protect the country as best we can from its enemies and from natural disasters. That is what this bill is all about. It is such a huge undertaking. We have got 7,500 miles of borders with our neighbors, we have 12,000 miles of coastline, including the Great Lakes, 440 commercial airports with 600 million passengers a year internally and many millions more from outside the country, rail and subways and tunnels and bridges and cyber structures, and the financial system. Everything we have is subject to attack, and it is a very, very difficult chore for the government, both the executive branch and certainly the legislative branch, to try to get our arms around the mission and to try to find the moneys there to try to finance the effort to defend the country against its enemies.

But I think we have done that within this bill as best we can. We have covered practically every angle that you can think of with plenty of funding. I am especially pleased that we found huge new sums to spend on border security. We can't exist as a country if we can't protect that border, and that is what this bill is all about in its main emphasis.

Again, I want to thank Marty Sabo for his years of service and friendship, he and Sylvia. Marty, you and Sylvia, we wish you Godspeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentlemen, the ranking member and the chairman of the Management Subcommittee on Homeland Security, that deal with these crucial issues.

I rise to support the Secure Border Initiative Financial Accountability Act and offer that there is an overall vision that this is a very important component of, and I hope that as we move this legislation along we still may have a window of opportunity to ensure that the Secure Border Initiative that Secretary Chertoff speaks of, that this is a major component of, is in place.

And I just want to thank both gentlemen for your leadership and acknowledge that, even with this Financial Accountability Act, we are still missing and need to move forward on: More agents to patrol our borders, secure our ports of entry and enforce immigration laws; expanded detention and removal capabilities to eliminate ``catch and release'' once and for all; a comprehensive and systematic upgrading of the technology used in controlling the border, including increased manned aerial assets, expanded use of UAVs, and next-generation detection technology; increased investment in infrastructure improvements at the border, providing additional physical security to sharply reduce illegal border crossings; and greatly increased interior enforcement of our immigration laws, including more robust work site enforcement; and, of course, an earned access to legalization.

We must not frighten America. Let them know that we are doing the job. But we can do both. We can account for everyone that is inside our borders, and we can work to protect and secure our northern and southern border. This initiative, the Financial Accountability, is crucial because it gives the Inspector General oversight and we, as the Management Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, have seen the fractures in the oversight of spending money. This is an important way to provide the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General to immediately review any Secure Border Initiative contract valued at $20 million or more.

Let me thank the two gentlemen, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Meek, who spent hours and hours reviewing some of the mishaps that have occurred with contracts that have not fulfilled the responsibility of securing America, contracts that have violated our trust. They have not had the right equipment, the technology. It hasn't worked. They haven't had the right staff.

This way, the Inspector General can make findings, including cost overruns, delays in contract execution, lack of rigorous contract management, insufficient Department oversight, and limitations on small business participation, which now will be able to be reported under this particular bill. Within 30 days of receiving the Inspector General's report, the Secretary must submit a corrective action plan to Congress, and as well we must ensure open opportunity.

Let me congratulate the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, and I joined him on these amendments that will highlight small businesses, automatically triggers oversight based on the award of contracts once a certain monetary amount has been reached, requires that the Inspector General conduct a review during the pendency of the project and requires that the Inspector General assess the inclusion of small, minority, and women-owned businesses in the SBI subcontracting plans as a factor in its review.

If that is not one of the larger pieces, everywhere we go, as this Department grows larger and larger and larger, Homeland Security spends more and more money, the question is, why can't the homegrown people do the job, the small businesses, the women-owned businesses, the minority-owned businesses? And the answer is a blank. We don't have an answer.

This committee has been in the leadership realm, this subcommittee with Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Meek. You have been in the driver's seat on pushing the Homeland Security Department and our subcommittee in ensuring that the little guys get the work.

We are now suffering in Louisiana and the Gulf Region because the little guys have been ignored, and the jurisdictions down there say we have got the little guys willing to work but the big guys have thrown us out the door and not allowed us to be able to do an efficient, cost- efficient, good job. It has been the layered contracts with multinationals, and it never gets down to small business persons.

So I rise to support this initiative, the Secure Border Initiative Financial Accountability Act, and I want to thank Cherri Branson and Rosaline Cohen for their leadership of staff.

I thank the ranking member for yielding to me, and I ask my colleagues to support it. But our work is yet undone until we finish comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6162, requiring financial accountability with respect to certain contract actions related to the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) of the Department of Homeland Security .

The Secure Border Initiative, SBI, is a comprehensive multi-year plan to secure America's borders and reduce illegal migration.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chert-off has announced an overall vision for the SBI which includes: more agents to patrol our borders, secure our ports of entry and enforce immigration laws; expanded detention and removal capabilities to eliminate ``catch and release'' once and for all; a comprehensive and systemic upgrading of the technology used in controlling the border, including increased manned aerial assets, expanded use of UAVs, and next-generation detection technology; increased investment in infrastructure improvements at the border--providing additional physical security to sharply reduce illegal border crossings; and greatly increased interior enforcement of our immigration laws--including more robust work site enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, an earlier version of this important bill passed the House as part of a border security measure in December 2005. Furthermore, the language of this bill also appears in fiscal year 2007 DHS authorization measure that passed the Committee on Homeland Security in July 2006.

This bill requires the DHS's Inspector General to immediately and automatically review any Secure Border Initiative contract valued at more than $20 million. This review necessarily entails examining the cost requirements, performance objectives, and program timelines set by the Department for the SBI project and requires an assessment of the inclusion of small, minority and women-owned businesses in any subcontracting plans.

The Inspector General's review must be completed within 60 days after its initiation and reported to the Secretary of DHS. Within 30 days of receiving the Inspector General's report, the Secretary of DHS must submit to the Committee on Homeland Security a report on the Inspector General's findings and the corrective action plan the Secretary has taken and plans to take.

This automatic triggering of oversight by the Inspector General for contracts greater than $20 million is critical to minimize the waste, abuse, and fraud, which unfortunately has plagued many of DHS's contracts. In addition, this review will occur during the pendency of the project rather than at its termination to minimize waste and ensure redemptive steps are taken expeditiously. The Inspector General's findings will include cost overruns, delays in contract execution, lack of rigorous Department contract management, insufficient Department financial oversight, limitations on small business participation, and other high risk business practices.

Moreover, this bill requires that the Inspector General assess the inclusion of small, minority and women-owned businesses in the SBI subcontracting plans as a factor in its review. Historically, small, minority and women-owned businesses have been disadvantaged in seeking and winning these types of contracts. There may be inherent disadvantages for these businesses, but it is clear their potential is tremendous. It is critical that DHS ensures that these businesses have the ability to compete fairly for these lucrative opportunities.

I am very proud that my district, Harris County and Houston ranks sixth and Texas ranks fifth in the country for the largest number of African-American owned firms, following New York, California, Florida, and Georgia. Minority and women-owned businesses across the country will appreciate the effort to preserve their opportunity to compete for these contracts. I encourage my colleagues to remember that there are a great many barriers to minority and women business professionals, and provisions such as these preserve equal access and open opportunities.

In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, small, minority and disadvantaged businesses from the region were shut out of disaster-related contracts because goals and preferences were not in place. Since the late 1960s, it has been the policy of the Federal Government to assist small businesses owned by minorities and women to become fully competitive, viable business concerns. As a result, the Small Business Administration has set forth government-wide goals to level the playing field for small and minority businesses seeking Federal Government contracts. Leveling the playing field continues to be a central concern for me and should continue to be a central concern for this Congress.

The oversight required in this bill is integral because SBlnet is expected to be a $2.5 billion procurement and the contracts allocated through SBI will be substantial. For example, last week, DHS awarded a contract valued at $80 million to a team led by Boeing under the SBInet program. Furthermore, the predecessors to SBI--ISIS and American Shield--fell far short of expectations. The Department spent over $429 million and protected 4 percent of the border, which is about $100 million for every 1 percent of the border.

Similarly, the Inspector General has found that the Department's failure in these past programs has been due to poor planning, lax program management, inappropriate equipment purchases and spotty implementation.

This bill is the first step in requiring effective oversight. Realistically, effective oversight cannot be the sole province of Inspectors General. It is Congress's constitutional duty to conduct systematic oversight of the programs and activities of the executive branch. Just as the Department cannot contract out its responsibilities, neither can we.

Consequently, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House debated the Conference Report for Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 535 of the conference report included a provision that will allow individuals to import into the U.S. from Canada a 90- day supply of a prescription drug, on their person, for their personal use. The provision specifically exempts controlled substances and biological products.

As the Chairman of the authorizing Committee with jurisdiction over the regulation of drugs and biological products, it is important for me to clarify what the language in this section means in regards to biologic products. The exemption applies to biological products, as that term is defined in Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act. The legislation does not confine the exception of only to those products licensed under Section 351 of the PHSA. This is an important distinction. To be clear, the language exempts biologic products licensed under the Public Health Service Act and those approved under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Members have also asked questions and offered various wishful opinions as to whether the chemical security section of the 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill preempts state or local law. Perhaps a review of the evolution of this provision would shed some light for Members. The House Committee on Homeland Security considered a bill in July that carried an amendment to explicitly state that the bill would not preempt state law. Why? Because Members recognized correctly that State or local laws that conflict with or

frustrate the purpose of Federal laws are preempted by the Federal law in the absence of explicit Federal language to the contrary, and the amendment's proponents wanted to ensure that States would not be so constrained. However, that bill was never considered by either body of Congress. When Senator Byrd initiated the process of using the 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill as a vehicle for legislating a Federal chemical security program, and then other Members began to venture suggestions to amend Senator Byrd's language in conference, the Chairmen of the three authorizing Committees, one in the other body and two in this body, were consulted.

During negotiations it was discussed and consciously decided among the authorizing committee negotiators to not include a provision exempting this section from Federal preemption because we do not want a patchwork of chemical security programs, and we do not want chemical facilities that are trying to secure themselves against threats of terrorism caught in a bind of wondering whether their site security complies with all law. It was only upon the agreement of the three authorizing Committee Chairmen that the Appropriations Conferees included the chemical security provision in the Appropriations Conference Report.

During Appropriations Conference deliberations, some Members argued and voted against including the chemical security section, in part because it was silent on preemption. However, they were outvoted. We are fully confident that courts of law, if ever faced with such a question, will examine the State or local provision and decide for themselves whether it conflicts with or frustrates the purpose of Federal law, including the chemical security section of the 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill and Section 101(b)(1)(F) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which states explicitly that the mission of the Department of Homeland Security includes ensuring ``that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and the provisions dealing with chemical plant security.

I truly regret this issue is being debated in the context of an appropriations bill. As Chairman of one of this Body's two Committees of jurisdiction, I am committed to engaging the policy debate in the future on chemical plant security legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have been astounded by the lack of real knowledge by some professed experts about the way that chemical plants are already regulated under existing Federal laws. When Congress resumes this debate in the next couple of years, it is essential that all interested persons know what their government

and the private sector are already doing before heaping an array of well-intentioned mandates on government and the private sector.

America does not become more secure by piling on more laws, it just become more regulated.

These provisions on chemical plant security are a step forward in making America more secure--and this is the only criterion by which I find myself supporting them. The legislation is far from perfect. However, it does establish, for the first time, an actual, and enforceable chemical plant security program for the whole Nation.

Let me highlight some key provisions:

First, this legislation requires chemical plants to conduct vulnerability assessments and site security plans. Similar steps have been required of other facilities by Congress and have passed without a dissenting vote.

Second, this legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop risk-based, performance-based regulations for securing high risk chemical plants within the next six months. This provision includes a much wider scope of plant coverage than what the Senate spending bill contained and it also makes the critical distinction that not every chemical plant is created or operates equally, has the same risks, or is similarly vulnerable.

Third, this legislation allows the Department to approve chemical plant regimes that other public or private interests develop that meet the criteria in the Department's regulations. This is crucial because it allows parties that have already invested in protecting chemical plants from terrorist attacks to avoid having those costs stranded simply because they had the foresight and initiative to act before this legislation became law.

Fourth, this is legislation protects sensitive information. We must never make security-sensitive information about chemical plants' available to anyone for the asking, including terrorists. Information protections have been included in every homeland security related bill since 9-11 and there is no good policy reason to end that practice right now.

This provision does not shield any chemical plant from FOIA requests for emissions data under existing Federal environmental statutes; it merely covers vulnerability and security information. I hope we all support this necessary protection.

Fifth, this legislation keeps the Department focused on chemical plant security. Some people want to have the Department's mission diluted with extraneous tasks such as regulating chemical plant pollution, chemical plant manufacturing processes, or chemical plant workplace relations.

We must not dismiss the volumes of environmental and manufacturing laws and enforcement expertise at both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, not to mention their state counterparts, so another Agency of the Federal government can get into the act.

Sixth, under the catch-phrase ``inherently safer technologies'' some want to vest in the Department of Homeland Security the power to regulate chemical feedstocks, processes, and products. One environmental protection agency is enough, Mr. Speaker. EPA has the authority and expertise it needs under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Air Act, and other laws to protect our environment from harmful chemical exposure.

Let's let the Department of Homeland Security focus on protecting us from the threat of chemical terrorism so that our plants and communities are secure, and manufacturing facilities can continue to meet the needs of the American consumer, the American worker, and the American economy.

Seventh, this legislation distinguishes facilities that are already regulated by Federal law to prevent terrorism consequences. This includes drinking water and Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) facilities. Some misread this distinction as meaning drinking water and maritime transportation facilities do not get protection. On the contrary, the protection from terrorism we've already given them is so good we don't want conflicting regulatory programs to interfere.

We don't want DHS, which is not an environmental or public health agency, setting de facto drinking water standards under the guise of security regulations. Both the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Acts and presidential directives on homeland security place EPA in charge of drinking water facilities. Let's keep it there.

Eighth, this legislation requires DHS to audit and inspect chemical facilities to ensure compliance. Further, any facility not in compliance faces civil penalties and those facilities who do not obey an order to take corrective action face the prospect of being forced to cease operation. Considering its consequences for dedicated workers and its downstream impacts on interstate commerce, I trust this power would be used, if ever, only as a last resort.

Last, this legislation prevents private rights of action against the chemical facility solely as a means of private parties enforcing the security provisions in this section. This bar against third-party suits does not extend to any presently existing right a person might have under any other law. Simply, this provision prevents self-deputized persons from using the courts to enact national security policy.

Mr. Speaker, imperfect as the chemical security section is, it is better than current law and should make us a more secure nation. I urge all my colleagues to support its inclusion in this bill and adoption of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to follow up on the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky about the gentleman from Minnesota.

I remember when Martin Sabo first walked into this institution in 1978. He and his wife, Sylvia, epitomize more than any people I know what are regarded as midwestern values, most especially the value of modesty. You will never find Martin Sabo bragging much on himself. In that sense, he is a true Norwegian. I also think that he exemplifies the thoughtfulness and the caring for one's neighbor that people in the Midwest have come to take as being the natural course of things.

He is probably the closest friend I have in this body. I very much regret to see him leave. I question his judgment profoundly on that.

As the gentleman from Kentucky has said, while today the gentleman from Minnesota deals with homeland security issues and is certainly an expert on those, in the past he has dealt with transportation issues most ably. As a matter of fact, there is no one in this body who has made a greater contribution to the cause of responsible budgeting and deficit reduction over the years than has the gentleman from Minnesota. He chaired the Budget Committee when we took the action under President Clinton that finally began to get the budget deficit under control.

I just want to profoundly express my appreciation to him, not just for his accomplishments but for the way he has achieved those accomplishments, for the way he has dealt with the needs of this body as an institution, for the respect that he has shown for the values and the traditions of this institution and the respect that he has shown for persons on both sides of the aisle.

He is truly a gentleman. He is a great legislator. I hate to see him go. I hope he is back to visit us often. I thank the gentleman profoundly for the quality of his service.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I am pleased to be able to support this bill. I very much regret the fact that we will only have completed two out of the 11 appropriation bills by the end of the fiscal year. That, in my view, is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee on either side of the aisle. It is very much the fault of the fact that this institution chose to adopt a budget resolution which did not accurately reflect the political center of gravity in the Republican Party, much less the Democratic Party when you take a look at the positions of each House.

Having said that, I want to take this opportunity to comment on something the President said yesterday because the President told the country that those of us on this side of the aisle were, in effect, soft on security and soft on defending this country.

I regret very much that the President has chosen to govern this country by dividing it rather than uniting it. I took a great deal of pleasure in working with the President's father in working out many a legislative compromise. We did the same thing with President Clinton. We did the same thing with President Carter. We even on many occasions did the same thing with President Reagan and President Nixon. But this is the first President I have known who has seemed to purposely divide the country in order to govern, and I just want to trace what the facts are with respect to defending the homeland.

I remember, in August of 2001 when I was at home in Wisconsin, receiving a call from my staff director telling me he had just been briefed by the CIA and that they were extremely concerned about the traffic that they were intercepting around the world, and they thought something big was up, did not know if it was domestic or international, but the intelligence community was very worried that something was coming. That was in August, just before 9/11.

The day before 9/11, Attorney General Ashcroft met with his staff to set out their priorities for the year, and in that meeting, he was presented a spreadsheet with various boxes indicating which would be his preferred activities and activities of focus for the coming year. He declined to check any of the boxes that had anything to do with antiterrorism. He was, in fact, urged by his staff to reconsider and rejected that advice and told the staff, ``No, I want to focus on drugs.'' The Attorney General denied that in a hearing of our committee, but in fact, my office had been leaked the documents by his own agency that showed exactly what he had done in that meeting.

Then, after we were hit by anthrax, I called Bill Young, who was then the chairman of the full committee, and suggested that since we could not get into our offices, we talk to the security agencies to see what they felt they needed in order to respond to the threat represented by 9/11.

We talked to the FBI, the NSA, CIA, you name it, all of the security agencies. On a bipartisan basis, we put together a listing of action items, and then we cut it and we cut it and then requested to see the President.

We went down to see the President. He came into the room. Before we could say a word, he said, ``Well, I understand some of you want to spend more money than I have requested for homeland security.'' He said, ``My good friend Mitch Daniels here from OMB tells us that we have got enough money in our budget, and so I want you to know, if you appropriate a dollar more than I have asked for, I will veto the bill. I have got time for four or five comments and I am out of here.''

Senator Stevens said, ``Mr. President, I do not think you understand, we have already agreed. We will knock off any item you do not want. We are not trying to have an argument. We just want something done.''

Senator Byrd made the same point, and then I asked the President, I said, ``Mr. President, I have been coming down here for 30 years, this is the first time any President has ever told me his mind was closed before the subject was even open.'' I said, ``I want to ask you four questions about Federal installations, which we have been told by your own people, your own security people, are gravely at risk of terrorist attack, their words, not mine.'' I asked him about them. It was clear he had not been briefed on them. I did not expect him to. He is a busy man.

But we walked out of there after being told by the President that he would veto any additional efforts to provide funds for homeland security. Despite that fact, we went back up to Capitol Hill and eventually added more than $2 billion to the President's request, and he signed the bill.

The following year, the President held a press conference bragging about the fact that the Customs agency had this new port security arrangement, new inspection of cargo coming into this country, and he had a press conference bragging about it, and then pocket vetoed the money to make it happen. I felt that that was enough to give hypocrisy a bad name.

So that is very basically the early history of what the President's record is in terms of resisting bipartisan efforts to strengthen homeland security funding.

I remember going out to the CIA and watching in real-time as we could see what the Predators flying over in Afghanistan were seeing when they were looking for bin Laden, and I know what the CIA people thought about the President's decision to divert a significant portion of our resources from the job of nailing bin Laden to preparing for the war in Iraq. They were not very happy about it, and we were not either.

Since that time, on seven different occasions on this side of the aisle, we have tried to add funding to the President's budget for homeland security and to the committee budget.

I want to make clear I think the subcommittee has done the best it could, given the allocation that it was given under the Republican budget; but that does not mean that the allocation was adequate. The record is clear that the President on numerous occasions offered inadequate budgets which had to be augmented by this committee on a bipartisan basis.

So I think it comes with considerable ill grace and with considerable reinventing of history for the President to suggest that there is any difference of opinion between the two parties with respect to our dedication to protecting the homeland. He knows it is not so, but campaign rhetoric is getting in the

way of the facts as far as he is concerned.

So I just want to make the point that I do not question the President's patriotism because he chose to put tax cuts as a higher priority than even additional funding for homeland security. That is a judgment he made, and that is a judgment he will have to defend. I do not question his patriotism. I question his judgment. I think that it comes with considerably ill grace from a man who has the track record of refusing efforts of this Congress to strengthen homeland security on various occasions, to have that man question anybody else's dedication to this country, question anybody else's dedication to defending this country.

The record does not bear out his claims, and I think if you check the record, you will find out that every statement I have made today is fully true and accurate.

With that, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Speaker, well, I am not sure I should say anything. But thank you to my chairman, Mr. Rogers, for his kind comments. We have been together, I think, 6 years now, 4 years on homeland security, 2 years on transportation.

As I said last night in front of the Rules Committee, the ultimate compliment I can give to somebody is to call them a pro; and Hal Rogers is a pro. It has been a pleasure to serve with him. He is on the majority party. He has a responsibility to the President of his own party.

At the time, he is someone who has asked many a tough question and asked for discipline and, as he said in his opening comments, that he expects to continue to do oversight of the operations of this agency which has had many, many growing pains. It has not been an easy committee to chair as we merged all of these 22 agencies into one, with an incredible amount of chaos; and he has shown, I think, an intellect and toughness and fairness in trying to steer this agency in the right direction. It has been a privilege to work with Chairman Rogers.

My friend, Dave Obey, who I have known, and known him for many years before I came to the Congress, neighbor across the border in Wisconsin, I have served with him on Appropriations for 28 years, both a personal friend and somebody who has an absolute passion for public policy and for making this institution work.

It has been a real honor, Dave, to get to know you and Joan and to work with you. You are just a great human being.

And to Dave Price who served with me on the Budget Committee, I am often asked, why do you leave? And, you know, particularly if the partisan nature changes and the opportunity to chair a subcommittee. And I always say, I have no reluctance in doing that because I know the next person in line is Dave Price, who is a person who has great skill as a legislator and great understanding of public policy. And I think he will do a great job, as he has done in many other roles, whatever the role might be, as either a Chair or ranking member of the subcommittee in 2 years. So it is an honor to have your kind words today.

And to the staff, to all of the majority staff, Michelle, who is not here because of a family crisis and who is leaving the House and has done an incredible job, but all of the majority staff have been great to work with.

I suppose a special word to Stephanie. She followed us from Transportation to Homeland Security. So I have had an opportunity to work with her in both roles.

To our own personal staff on this committee, to Chris, who has worked with us, and Bev Pheto, who sits right here next to me, who has worked with us, me personally on this committee, over the last 6 years, 2 years in Transportation, 4 years in Homeland Security, who I am constantly amazed at her knowledge and her energy. She has

to compete with all of you on the majority side and has remarkable knowledge and ability. It utterly amazes me. And she is a remarkable person.

Marjorie Duske from my staff, who originally was an intern in our office and has now been in our office for many years working with me on Homeland Security, has worked transportation, defense, housing, you name it, from simple issues to the most complicated of issues, just been an incredible person, dedicated to public policy and doing what is right, but, at the same time, tough, hard-nosed to work with agencies to make sure that the Government does what it is supposed to do.

Just incredible people who make this institution work. I simply say thank you.

A couple of words about the bill, if I might. It is a good bill, and it does lots of good things. It has got additional funding.

Some of the other issues we worked on, we have had a concern over how sensitive security information is handled by the Department. There are provisions here for handling that information, which I think is good. I think the changes made to FEMA strengthens the role of FEMA.

I was one, along with Mr. Obey, who a year ago thought we were making a mistake as we created a new Department or agency on preparedness and how it was structured. This basically goes back to strengthening the role of FEMA within the Department. I think it is a significant improvement.

Frankly, if I had my choice, I still would make FEMA a separate agency outside of this Department. I would prefer that. That is not going to happen. I think the changes in this bill represent substantial improvement.

I have to say that I am concerned over how we add the money in this bill for the Department. We do it on an energy basis. I think $1.8 billion is desperately needed and will be well spent. But, at some point, we have to come back to passing budget resolutions in this body that are real.

The need for additional expenditure for homeland security are not emergencies. They are going to be there on an ongoing basis in the years ahead; and, in 2005, we added $450 million as an emergency; 2006, $1.2; and $1.8 in 2007.

At some point, this institution has got to get back to having budget resolutions that are real, where real choices are made, not pretending that we are not going to spend any money initially and then getting around to it by having emergency designations. That simply undermines the process.

I am probably in the minority on this issue. I still remain very concerned to the degree we have given the Department discretion in distributing some of our formula funds. I do not think that they have the capacity to do it. So I hope this institution keeps an eye on how the agency does distribute formula grants or simply grants in the future. Clearly, their ability to do it on a discretionary basis, I think, needs to be examined; and I think they need much better information to do that than they have had in the past.

But it is a good bill. It has been a pleasure working with Mr. Rogers and all of the other members of our subcommittee. We have a good subcommittee. I think this committee has made a great contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I do have to ask one question. I understand we have a variety of other bills relating to homeland security that are authorizing bills, that seem to be hanging up the adjournment or our recess. Am I wrong that everything that is in this bill is currently authorized? All of our money can be spent that is in this bill? It is not subject to any authorization?

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

All of the money that is needed for borders, for ports, all of the money we have appropriated can be spent?

I thank the gentleman. And I thank the gentleman for his good work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I have read the chemical bill language, and I do not understand whether that language preempts the ability of a State to adopt more stringent requirements than the Federal standards.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

The intention is not to preempt the ability of the States.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield back my time, let me simply say to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), thank you for presiding today in a very fair and efficient manner. It is a pleasure working with the gentleman. And on Twins.

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