Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1817) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we begin today a historic debate on the floor of this House that commences the annual authorization process for the Department of Homeland Security. This annual process is designed to recognize that the function of the Department of Homeland Security is the essence of our government's national security mission, protecting the American people and our territory.

This is the same national security mission ultimately that is performed in different ways by the Pentagon and by the intelligence community. Both the Pentagon and the intelligence community for this same reason undergo an annual authorization process in the Congress. That is a collaboration between the executive and the legislative branches that is necessary to ensure that we fulfill this most vital function.

We must remember that the Department of Homeland Security in the executive branch and the Committees on Homeland Security in this House and in the other body were formed because the congressional leadership and the President recognized that neither branch of government as then constituted was properly organized to deal with the 21st century threat of terrorism directed against Americans on our own territory. On an ongoing basis, the Congress and the executive need to focus together on this vital process and the annual authorization is the means for doing so.

The Department of Homeland Security authorization bill that is before the House today reflects an impressive bipartisan effort. That is due, in large part, to the strong and able leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). The Members on both sides of the aisle have never forgotten for a single day since September 11, 2001, that the security of the American people must be placed above politics.

So as we meet today to consider the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill for fiscal year 2006, we find that we have forged agreement on many important challenges facing our country and the Department, and on ways to begin to address them. In establishing the procedures for bringing this annual authorization bill to the floor, we have been guided by the long-standing practices of the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Those committees have always brought to the floor bills that live within the spending boundaries established in the House-passed budget. H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill also does exactly that.

To have credibility, a national security authorization bill must set the executive's priorities within the framework of its actual budgetary resources. It does little good for us to pretend that the Department of Homeland Security has infinite budget resources, and then give it mandates that it cannot carry out. So this bill funds priorities within the overall DHS budget, not on top of it.

Within that constraint, we have been able to accomplish a great deal more for the security of the American people and for this country. We fully fund the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents called for in the Intelligence Reform Act passed last year, and we increase the Department of Homeland Security's funding by nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars for this purpose.

The bill authorizes $40 million so that immigration and customs enforcement can expedite illegal alien removal. It provides $5 million in new funding to implement the Safety Act so we can more quickly deploy anti-terrorism technologies to protect the American people from terrorism. It adds $20 million for interoperable communications and technical assistance for our first responders. It increases funding for cybersecurity research and development and for cybersecurity education and training.

Within the Department of Homeland Security budget that this House has already approved, we have authorized $40 million in additional funds to support the training of State and local law enforcement personnel so they can help enforce Federal immigration laws. This provision is contained in a separate amendment that I will offer today with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary.

On these and all other funding decisions in the bill, we have had to make hard choices and set priorities. That is our responsibility. As a result, we have not funded every initiative to protect against every conceivable means by which terrorists might mount an attack. But what we have done is based our funding decisions on the best intelligence available, on terrorist capabilities and intentions, and on the actual risk of terrorist attack. The bill also advances our prime objective of preventing terrorism by improving our intelligence capability within the Department of Homeland Security.

Prevention of terrorism requires that information sharing about terrorist threats be seamless, that it be timely, and that that communication be secure. That is exactly what this bill accomplishes, both within the Department of Homeland Security and across the Federal Government and with our State, local and private sector partners. It provides the Department of Homeland Security with new tools to build a robust intelligence capability. It strengthens the partnership with these other stakeholders.

Those partnerships are essential in sustaining the counterterrorism mission into the foreseeable future, and the bill will help the Department of Homeland Security to streamline and integrate the multitude of different background checks and security screenings that are conducted for travelers, workers and other critical personnel who are required to undergo security checks by the Department.

The bill revises the color-coded homeland security advisory system to make sure that threat warnings are specific and informative, and wherever possible, that these warnings be targeted. By targeting these warnings to the areas of the country or sectors of the economy that are threatened, we can be sure that we are warning the right people and not needlessly scaring the wrong people. We also need to make sure that the Federal Government gives clear guidance and speaks with one voice when it issues such warnings. This bill will ensure this happens.

This authorization bill is shorter this year than it will ever be in future years. That is because, first, the Department itself is only 2 years old, and Congress has just recently written the entire legislative charter for the Department.

Second, we have a new homeland security Secretary who is just concluding his top to bottom 90-day review of the entire department. We want to give Secretary Chertoff the opportunity to draw his own road map, both organizationally and programatically, of where this Department should go.

We will proceed on additional authorizing legislation later this year once we have had the opportunity through hearings and oversight to evaluate the Secretary's proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude by thanking the Members on both sides of the aisle and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for their foresight in creating the Committee on Homeland Security within the House of Representatives and for allowing us to initiate this annual authorization process on the floor. This is a significant milestone on our long journey toward keeping America safe from terrorism.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on our side, and I reserve the balance of the time for closing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for purposes of closing debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), both for his generous remarks but, more importantly, for his hard work on this piece of legislation over a period of several months and, as he pointed out, through ultimately a very long, arduous markup in the committee where members on both sides had an unlimited opportunity to offer amendments and consider a variety of topics.

As we conclude general debate and prepare to move into debate on the specific amendments on this bill, I think we can recognize one important fact, and that is that we are all agreed on the essence of the underlying bill. We have some things, each of us, that we might like to add to this bill, and I predict that in due course, over the rest of this year, we will have an opportunity again on this House floor to take up issues, including aviation security, chemical security, port security, and so on.

But the entirety of what we do accomplish in this bill is bipartisan in nature and agreed upon by the members on both sides of the aisle, at least in the Committee on Homeland Security, and we will soon see about the House as a whole. That is because we have allocated the $32 billion, for what is now the third largest Cabinet department, in a way that demonstrably advances our number one goal of preventing terrorism in the future on American soil, directed against American citizens, protecting America's most critical infrastructure against terrorist attack, and being prepared to respond and recover should, against all our best preparations, that ever occur in the future.

In order to bring us to this point, we have had to have a great deal of bipartisan assistance, all motivated by the best interests of the country from Members on both sides.

I specifically want to mention the vice chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon); the chairmen and ranking members of our five subcommittees, and the Staff Directors on both sides, Ben Cohen on the Majority side and Calvin Humphreys on the minority side. The staffs have done extraordinary professional work, and their staffs are drawn from, in many cases, the executive branch, with experience about precisely the work and the programs that we are overseeing in this legislation. Many of them have come from the intelligence community, others come from the Coast Guard and other branches of the armed services.

We can be very proud in this House about the institutionalization of the role of homeland security oversight and authorization that has been set in motion as a result of a decision of leadership on both sides, and I want to conclude by taking this opportunity, once again, to thank the House leadership for its very wise decision to create permanent authorizing and oversight responsibility in this Congress on an institutionalized basis, and then, today, taking the next important step of institutionalizing an annual authorization process so that together the legislative branch and the executive branch will closely collaborate on what is the essence of our national security responsibility to all Americans: making sure that we are safe and secure on American territory for the American citizens.

So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will draw this general debate to a conclusion, and I look forward to working with the body on the several amendments that have been made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I will at this time introduce into the Record a series of letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and other standing committees, including the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, concerning jurisdictional issues raised by this legislation.

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.

Hon. Christopher Cox,

Chairman, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your willingness to

consult and work with me as you guided H.R. 1817, ``the

Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2006'' from introduction, through

the Homeland Security Committee, and to the floor. As you

know, the Committee on Government Reform has been interested

in a number of provisions within H.R. 1817. The Committee has

been concerned that the expansion of the Department's

responsibilities for information sharing in Title II,

Subtitle B, Homeland Security Information Sharing and

Analysis Enhancement, not lessen the Department's

responsibility to follow government-wide policies and

procedures for the sharing of information. In addition to the

information sharing provisions of Subtitle B, the Committee

has specific jurisdictional interests in the following

provisions of your substitute: Sec. 201--Consolidated

Background Check Process; Sec. 216--Coordination of homeland

security threat analysis provided to non-Federal officials;

Sec. 217--9/11 Homeland Security Fellows Program; Sec. 221--

IAIP Personnel Recruitment; Sec. 302--Technology Development

and Transfer; Sec. 303--Review of Antiterrorism Activities;

Title III, Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security

Cybersecurity Enhancement; Sec. 334--Protection of

Information; and Sec. 502--GAO Report to Congress.

I would like to confirm our mutual understanding with

respect to the consideration of H.R. 1817. As you know, H.R.

1817 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Government

Reform. Because of your willingness to work with us to

resolve issues of concern to the Committee and to include

those improvements to the bill in your amendment in the

nature of a substitute on the floor, the Committee on

Government Reform did not consider H.R. 1817. However, the

Committee has done so only with the understanding that this

procedural route would not prejudice the Committee on

Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives

on this bill or similar legislation.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform

should this bill or a similar Senate bill be considered in

conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you

include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Congressional Record during the House debate of this

bill. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do

not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this

matter.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), who is a very able and well-informed Member of the committee and serves as the ranking member on the committee on oversight, which has particular responsibilities in this area. I support his view of the importance of the Inspector General's function inside the Department of Homeland Security and of the mission of fighting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, and specifically in the Department of Homeland Security, because it is a critical mission.

The reason, however, that I cannot support the amendment is different than what I have just said. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) about the Inspector General's function and fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. First, I cannot support it because the authorization of $200 million, which is a tripling of the current budget, has no offset. It is therefore a budget buster.

As I stated in general debate, what has characterized our efforts on the underlying bill is that we are operating within the parameters of the House-passed budget, and specifically the allocation for the overall Department of Homeland Security of $32 billion.

When we make changes in the priorities in the bill by doing something else that is good, we have got to find somewhere to take the money from, and this amendment simply does not do it. It pulls the money from thin air.

Second, the new level of funding that this would establish, the enormous increase from $83 million at present to $200 million, would create an IG office and staff and administration virtually identical in size to that which exists in the largest Cabinet Department, the Department of Defense, even though DOD's budget and empire and responsibilities are 10 times larger than the Department of Homeland Security. So there is a problem of scale.

Third, not withstanding the testimony, correctly cited by my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), of former IGs about their experience and their need for more staff, the current IG has more staff.

The staffing level of the Office of Inspector General already has grown significantly over the last 3 years from 475 full-time employees in fiscal year 2004, to 502 in fiscal 2005, to 540 in fiscal year 2006.

And for that reason, neither the administration nor the Inspector General himself has asked for this increase that is before us in this amendment.

For all of these reasons, I regretfully oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership on oversight and investigation. I will commit to continuing to work with him on the full committee and to make sure that the IG gets the resources that he needs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) with whom I am offering this amendment.

Our amendment will authorize funds to reimburse States for training costs that they incur if they voluntarily participate in the training of their law enforcement agents for the purposes of enforcing our Nation's immigration laws.

In 1996, I authored section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That section is now codified as section 287(G) of the INA. It provided and continues to provide as a piece of our permanent legislation local and State law enforcement officers with the option of being trained and deputized by the Federal Government so that they can assist with the enforcement of our immigration laws in the pursuit of their normal duties of protecting citizens from crime.

Over the last 8 years, slowly but surely, we have learned how to use this facility so that the Department has entered into several memoranda of understanding, for example, with the State

of Florida in September 2002, the State of Alabama in September of 2003, and very recently the County of Los Angeles in pursuit of specific authorization by the elected officials of the County of Los Angeles in February of 2005.

So the reason that we are offering this amendment today is that inasmuch as this is a purely voluntary program, offering aid to State and local law enforcement that wants it that is asking for it and is volunteering for it, they should be reimbursed for their costs as first responders of helping us enforce Federal law and achieving the national mission of protecting our borders.

We need to capitalize on existing law enforcement resources by ensuring that State and local law enforcement have the opportunity to receive this training that will help them to protect their local communities.

In turn, those enforcement efforts will help protect the Nation from threats of terrorism. I want to emphasize just a few things. First, this amendment does not alter the fundamental voluntary nature of the participation of States and Federal Government. So no State and no subdivision of the State that does not wish in any way to be involved in the enforcement of our immigration laws will be required to do so, either under existing law or under this fund provision.

Second, the purpose of the law, of the training, and of the reimbursement is to focus on crime and on people who are not only unlawfully in this country but who are committing other crimes, in particular felonies.

Third, the training that is provided by the Federal Government specifically includes training in the areas of civil rights and the prevention of profiling.

I want to reiterate that this amendment does not change or alter any authority that already exists in law. It merely provides funding for States for their first responders who should be reimbursed for this training.

I fully support this program, and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, this amendment is offered jointly by myself as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on this side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and if I might, I would like to speak first to the amendment that the gentleman has offered, and then we could engage in a colloquy on a second amendment.

So, Mr. Chairman, I rise therefore in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island. As the gentleman observes, we have established in the Federal Government, through the Department of Homeland Security, the Homeland Security Center of Excellence for Behavioral and Social Research on Terrorism and Counterterrorism. This center, which is located in Maryland, was established by a $12 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security in January of this year.

This is the fourth Homeland Security Center of Excellence to be established. Its expertise lies precisely in this area, and it makes a good deal of sense to rely on this newly available expertise as we redesign the homeland security advisory system.

As the gentleman from Rhode Island points out, section 205 of the underlying bill, which we are amending, will already require redesign of that system to move from vague and general warnings to specific warnings that wherever possible are sector specific, industry specific and threat specific; regional in nature wherever possible.

We have to stop issuing vague warnings that only serve to alarm the general public, and we have to provide useful information to the category of people who receive the warning. Using the expertise of this center will accomplish both of these important objectives. And I am very glad that the gentleman from Rhode Island has worked with the staff on the committee to address some concerns with the original draft of the amendment so that we are now completely in accord on both the language and the wisdom of the proposal.

For all of those reasons, I am pleased to accept the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in its support.

Mr. Chairman, although I am in support of the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield myself the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for his comments on and his commitment to this vitally important issue. I too am committed to citizen terrorism preparedness.

I agree that the Department of Homeland Security should make it a priority to engage the American public as partners in homeland security. It simply makes sense to encourage continued dialogue between the Department and its constituency, the American people.

The Department of Homeland Security has taken many important steps to foster just this kind of dialogue. For example, the Department administers the Citizen Corps Program which is specifically designed to improve civilian terrorism preparedness. In addition, the Department Science and Technology Directorate plans to establish a Center of Excellence on Domestic Preparedness and Response Capabilities. When established later this year, this center will engage in mission- oriented research to enhance citizen preparedness and improve citizen input into local, State and Federal preparedness and response efforts.

As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I believe it would be prudent for the committee to hold hearings on the purpose and effectiveness of the Department's citizen terrorism preparedness programs. I also agree with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) that our government's preparedness is contingent upon actively and substantively engaging the citizens, and that that question must be part of our inquiry.

I look forward to working with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) as well as Members on both sides of the aisle on the Committee on Homeland Security as we examine this topic more closely. I think we all agree that citizen preparedness is simply too important to ignore.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) to speak in support of the amendment which the gentleman offered to the Committee on Rules and was made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree. Certainly in matters relating to cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure, the agencies the gentleman listed will be considered ``relevant Federal agencies.''

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

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

I want to engage in a colloquy, if I might, with my colleague from Indiana and begin by sharing with him my support for his objectives and also my shared concern with this issue, which he has clearly identified, of overlapping jurisdictions.

Before the Congress takes the next step of designating a single agency to be the lead on airspace security, it is my view that we need our full Committee on Homeland Security through hearings and oversight to take an in-depth look at the capabilities of each of the agencies involved. Additionally, Secretary Chertoff is just days away from presenting to us the results of his 90-day top-to-bottom review of the Department, and I expect that the results of that review will include issues of mission overlap and also areas needing improved coordination.

So I would be glad to work with the gentleman on this precise issue and to

move with alacrity if he would be willing to withdraw his amendment so that we can consider this in the committee. If that is agreeable to him, I would be happy to make that commitment at this time.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe the gentleman has very clearly and accurately stated the jurisdictional question on this amendment. It has been determined that it falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. For that reason I would propose that the Committee on Homeland Security take up this issue and use its jurisdiction to help solve this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding is correct. If the gentleman is willing to withdraw his amendment, the Committee on Homeland Security, through its chairman and ranking member, would formally request this information from the Department of Homeland Security.

As the gentleman knows, the Department of Homeland Security and its Infrastructure Protection Directorate is currently focusing heavily on this part of the country and, as a result, the identification of critical assets, high-risk facilities, the implementation of security measures, and the recommendation of additional mitigation strategies for this region is something that the committee should hear on and, as a result, I would propose, with the ranking member, that we seek the information in this way.

My only concern with the amendment as drafted is that it would set the precedent of establishing a national legislation requirement for IP mandates for specific regions within the States, rather than a national infrastructure strategy.

The gentleman has my commitment on that subject.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the Menendez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back 2 minutes of my time, and I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, with all respect to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I could not disagree more strongly.

The Constitution of the United States gives to our national government the responsibility to provide for the common defense. When al Qaeda turned airliners into missiles, hundreds of passengers aboard those aircraft were killed, but thousands of people in the World Trade Center Towers and in the Pentagon were also killed. And none of them was an airline passenger.

Neither were the millions of Americans who suffered the economic damage of billions of dollars inflicted by al Qaeda as a result of those attacks. Homeland security, in my view, is the essence of national security.

And this amendment puts that question to the test. Is homeland security merely the correlation of national security, or is it the core of what we are seeking to establish when we provide for the common defense and protecting the territory and the population of the United States?

If every time the Pentagon needed a new weapons system they had to find a user fee in order to pay for it, we would have a third-world national defense. But, in fact, Mr. Chairman, as Democrats and Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee have determined, homeland security is all about providing for the common defense, and funding it is a national responsibility.

For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment offered by gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, first I want to offer my great appreciation of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of this committee, and of course for his collaborative efforts with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of this committee.

I think that we can go on record as one of the more collaborative committees on something that requires an American response.

I rise today to say that we have made a good first step. As all of America's eyes were looking at a little Cessna, the Committee on Homeland Security now recognizes or has recognized that we are and have to be a proactive committee. We must give an answer to the American people that they will appreciate and find comfort that we are securing the homeland, the rural hamlets, the urban areas, the suburban areas, the counties, the cities, and Homeland Security Should be in our neighborhoods.

So I am somewhat disappointed that my community preparedness amendment was not included, but I look forward to working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) so that we can emphasize an enhanced citizen corps. I am glad that we will study the question of whether or not border violence requires volunteer efforts and whether or not we are doing all that we can as a governmental entity to protect our borders. That is the role and the responsibility of America.

Then I am delighted that we have done a few things in this bill, but, Mr. Chairman, I raise a question that there is no emphasis, no work done on the aviation security issues that are still growing and still there; no further work done on port security that really is important in America with the need for new technology and the inspection of cargo, which is not done in all of America's ports; and certainly, coming from Texas, I think it is important that we understand industry such as the energy industry, but we must demand safety and, as well, there is a great need for protecting, or at least providing those kinds of requirements and oversight.

We could do more. I look forward to supporting the substitute offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and I ask my colleagues to support my amendments regarding border violence as well as studies dealing with temporary protective status. I ask my colleagues that we work together to secure the homeland.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the overall measure we consider today, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY 2006, H.R. 1817. While there remain areas that have not been adequately addressed in its provisions, I recognize the importance of a bi- partisan effort to secure our homeland. We have waited three years for the crafting and consideration of an authorization measure, and now we have the chance to show America that we are responsible, prudent, and expedient.

H.R. 1817 is the first authorization measure since the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2003. The appropriators withheld over $700 million from DHS due to incomplete fulfillment of specific reporting requirements; therefore, our passage of the most comprehensive and representative measure possible would equate to having conducted ``due diligence'' on our part.

Just yesterday, we in the House passed the Appropriations Act for FY 2006, H.R. 2360, by a margin of 424-1. I joined my committee colleagues in considering this bill from its incipiency as it passed in both the Committees on Homeland Security on April 28, 2005 and Judiciary on May 12, 2005 unanimously by voice vote. Today, the Committee of the Whole will make history by passing its first Homeland Security Authorization measure, and I support an expedient but prudent completion of this endeavor.

In the markup hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary held on May 12, 2005, I offered an amendment on behalf of and in conjunction with my colleague from California, who serves on the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Homeland Security, Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Immigration, and First Vice Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. As I serve as the Ranking Member of this Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, this important amendment that would require the collection of data on immigration consultants and ``notarios'' who conduct fraudulent immigration services for compensation, I was happy to offer this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary and the Ranking Member from Michigan for their collaborative support of this amendment as it was accepted and incorporated as Section 506 of the Amendment in Nature of a Substitute that we consider today.

During the 13-hour Homeland Security Committee markup session that ended at 11:15 p.m. I was able to secure sincere commitments from the Majority Leadership to work with me for inclusion of some of my major initiatives: funding and more clearly defining the Citizen Corps and the Citizen Corps Councils--which will include consideration of a stand-alone bill that I will introduce shortly; and increasing capacity for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Institutions in Homeland Security procurement and in employment with the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, I was fortunate to have had my amendment, co-sponsored by the Gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, that seeks to authorize the funding of programs for the education of minorities in the areas of cyberscience, research, and development to close the gap in achievement in those areas and to make America better equipped to fight terrorism overall. Furthermore, I achieved an agreement from the Majority Committee Leadership to collaborate on addressing the issue of border violence, an initiative that the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security showed his commitment to addressing, as evidenced by his support for an amendment that I offered yesterday during the House's consideration of the appropriations measure, H.R. 2360. Not only do I hope to see this language survive the deliberations of the Conferees, but I hope to see follow-through by the Homeland Security Committee with the bi-partisan letter and with consideration of the amendment that I plan to offer during our consideration of H.R. 1817.

Mr. Speaker, what the House has done this week and will do today will establish the breadth and efficacy of the entire Department of Homeland Security. I hope that my colleagues will keep that in mind as we work to debate the amendments that have been made in order.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me time.

I rise to acknowledge the good intentions of the effort offered by the proponent of this amendment, but I also raise a number of red flags that are not answered by this amendment. In fact, it creates a whole new obligation for the Federal Government that does not address the Federal Government's responsibility for immigration enforcement and reform.

Frankly, I wish we were debating $40 million plus and more to fully fund the first responders bill or the first responders efforts to ensure that fire persons and police persons are fully funded for the work that they have to do to secure the homeland.

I would prefer an amendment that would fully fund the 2,000 plus every year border security protection agents that the 9/11 Commission recommended.

I would prefer this amendment to support the 800 a year ICE agents, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who are at a measly 123 per year and do not have full complement to do their work.

All this amendment does is to set up an incentive that will not last and to get local communities dependent upon resources and place them in the line of fire to be doing the enforcement of immigration laws that the Federal Government should actually be doing. This gives them the false hope of memorandums of understanding that year after year will not be fully funded.

I am delighted that we are having this debate. At least we separate from the other body that wants to shut down the democratic process of debate by eliminating the filibuster. I will not do that today, but I think that we have an opportunity here to put forward a homeland security legislative initiative that really responds to the needs of enforcing immigration.

Authorizing funding, as I indicated, would be a deceptive encouragement to States to enter into MOUs. The history of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, however, makes it clear that such funding is unlikely. That program was established by Congress to reimburse State and local governments for costs incurred when incarcerating undocumented aliens convicted of crimes.

According to the National Association of Counties, State and local governments receive just 40 cents for every dollar they spend housing and processing such inmates. Meaning, Mr. Chairman, it has not worked.

I see the very same pathway for this limited funding. Really, what we should be doing is giving the States $100 million plus that we have now burdened them with in the unfunded mandate of the REAL ID bill. That bill, that is not funded, is going to create the greatest amount of havoc for untrained individuals dealing with this. It is not the law enforcement officers' ground. It is the Department of Public Safety that is going to have to characterize and create something we call a national ID card.

It also creates a false sense of public safety and it harms public safety. The false promise of funding would encourage some agencies to enter into MOUs, but expanded State and local enforcement of Federal immigration laws would harm public safety.

When police become immigration agents, the trust and confidence of immigrants and their communities are shaken. Word spreads like wildfire, and those very same immigrants, legal and nonlegal, if you will, will stifle, cut out the work of helping local law enforcement solve crime. We know that immigrants, documented and undocumented, are preyed upon, are victims, and they are victims and they are fearful, and they are in the midst of crimes being perpetrated against them and their neighbors. They have the answers and they will not give the answers and we will not solve crime in many of our communities because they believe that the local law enforcement is there to harm them and not there to help them.

I believe one frustration they run into is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security does not always respond to the request for assistance when people are believed to be undocumented. That is really where our problem is.

The other problem I might say is that when they arrest these individuals, we do not have the adjudicators to process them. So there is an enormous backlog. I tried on the floor of the House to offer an appropriations increase to get us 300 adjudicators, an amendment of myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). That did not prevail. So, in actuality, this is a false effort, giving $40 million with good intentions, but it really does nothing to help local law enforcement.

Let us fully fund them for the work they have to do, fully fund the immigration law enforcement for the work they have to do, and let us do our work as a Federal Government in securing the homeland and providing immigration enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Authorization bill would authorize Federal funding for State and local police agencies who enter into MOUs with ICe to enforce immigration laws.

Based on earlier versions of the amendment as it was proposed during committee consideration of the bill, it appears that only training costs would be reimbursed. Ongoing personnel and administrative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies that enter into MOUs would not.

This amendment is inadequate for a variety of reasons:

false incentive

Authorizing funding would be a deceptive encouragement to States to enter into MOUs. The history of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), however, makes it clear that such funding is unlikely. SCAAP was established by Congress to reimburse State and local governments for costs incurred when incarcerating undocumented aliens convicted of crimes.

According to the National Association of Counties, State and local governments received just 40 cents for every dollar they spend housing and processing such inmates. Also, President Bush has consistently attempted to eliminate the program entirely in his annual budget requests.

If Congress and the White House do not support full funding to reimburse State and

local governments for costs incurred during criminal enforcement activities, it is highly unlikely that they will appropriate the monies needed to fund State and local agencies that engage in civil immigration law enforcement.

Not only is appropriation of this money less than certain, but the money covers a very small portion of the costs incurred by State and local agencies entering into MOUs. It does not fund ongoing salary and administrative costs for police as they take on new demands related to immigration enforcement. Indeed, if the drafters did want to appropriate this money, it would make more sense for them to fund hiring and training of additional Federal agents.

Harms public safety

The false promise of funding would encourage some agencies to enter into MOUs. But expanded State and local enforcement of Federal immigration laws would harm public safety.

When police become immigration agents, the trust and confidence of immigrants and their communities are shaken. Word spreads like wildfire that any contact with police could mean deportation for themselves or their family members. Immigrants decline to report crimes or suspicious activity, and criminals see them as easy prey, making our streets less safe as a result.

Experience shows that this fear extends not only to contact with police, but also to the fire department, hospitals, and the public school system.

Not their role

State and local law enforcement's priorities are and should be stopping, investigating, and punishing criminal activity. State and local police already have all the tools they need to work with Federal agencies, including ICE, on joint operations and investigations. They can also detain criminals who are also immigration law violators and contact ICE to come pick them up. They do this every day.

One frustration they run into is the fact that DHS doesn't always respond to their requests for assistance with people believed to be undocumented. DHS also has its priorities, and has focused first on terrorists and criminals. Undocumented workers fall further down the list. This amendment does nothing to ensure that agencies entering into MOUs will actually see responses from ICE as they come across people they think could be undocumented and attempt to sort it out.

Obviously the broken immigration system and lack of consistent enforcement cannot stand. But asking State and local police agencies to fill in where the Federal Government has failed is a cheap and false ``solution.''

Not the solution

The answer is not asking State and local governments to make up for the failures of the feds. The answer is modernizing the immigration system so that well-intentioned migrants can enter to work and reunite with their families legally. When the current undocumented population is brought out of the shadows for a proper vetting and gets on a path to legal status, our enforcement resources will be better trained on the smugglers and fake document rings, the drug runners and violent criminals, and the terrorists who might manipulate our system.

As President Bush said, once immigrants have legal papers, ``Law enforcement will face fewer problems with undocumented workers, and will be better able to focus on the true threats to our Nation from criminals and terrorists. . . . Temporary workers will be able to establish their identities by obtaining the legal documents we all take for granted. And they will be able to talk openly to authorities, to report crimes when they are harmed, without the fear of being deported'' (White House policy announcement, 01/07/2003).

These reforms are the real solution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his tireless efforts to see that this day came to be. He worked continuously to create a permanent Committee on Homeland Security and put in the right track to producing the bill.

It took 13 hours to mark up this bill in committee, and I have to say that he never lost his patience or his good character, nor his sense of humor; but clearly, it was a bipartisan effort, and for that I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

This bill has many good provisions in it. It rejects the section of the President's shortsighted budget that sought to hire only 210 new Border Patrol agents this year. Instead, it provided for the 2,000 border agents that everybody else agreed that we needed.

It also, by creating an Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity at DHS, finally recognizes the threat posed by cyber attacks. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and other Democrats on this committee have sought the creation of this position for a very long time.

The evaluation of the color-coded terrorist system is also welcomed. The system has provided more material for late-night comedians than effective information on threats on the public.

Also, I am glad that this bill requires the Department to explain how it is working to protect agriculture and the Nation's food supply from terrorist attacks.

That said, I wish this bill would have been more comprehensive. I am glad that, as the chairman mentioned, it is small only because we are a new committee, but there are some things that we overlooked. We did not mention airports or chemical plants in this legislation. I just hold up for the chairman's view and the view of the public the defense authorization bill which is sizable, and I look forward to, in the next authorization effort next year, to having a bill that is comprehensive.

The present authorization bill is very, very short on content, but nonetheless it is a start. There is no comparison between the two, so I am convinced that at the end of the day Members will recognize we have a long way to go and there can be no effort or wasting time. We must do what it takes to make America secure. I hope that we work closely to close the security gaps left by this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), an excellent member on the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), also a member of the committee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a member of the committee.

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

We have heard a number of statements about this bill. It is an initial step in the right direction. It is not comprehensive. There are some glaring overlooks in the bill. We do not address any aviation security, we do not address chemical security. There are a number of things that we could do better in this bill.

However, I have to join my chairman in recognizing the fact that this is our first attempt to do an authorization bill. It is by no means complete, but given his leadership and willingness to work in a bipartisan spirit, I am looking forward to moving this legislation and making sure that we do the right thing for this country. We have to secure this Nation.

I will be offering a substitute later in the debate which obviously will cover far more areas than what this authorization bill covers that we are debating here today.

Clearly, if we support the substitute, we can move closer to making America secure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I now rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), my Homeland Security Committee colleague, the ranking member on the Management, Integration and Oversight Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard testimony time and time again on our committee about the underfunding of the office of Inspector General. We had committee testimony from three Inspector Generals indicating that the office was underfunded.

Just to show you what they found in recent reviews, we found that the Department spent $31,000 on rubber plants. We also found that they spent $500,000 on an awards ceremony. Clearly these expenditures are out of line and should not have been.

Testimony also revealed that had we had a more robust Office of Inspector General, we could do more oversight. So the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Meek) amendment is in order. It is something that we should do. If we look at other agencies, this Department is woefully underfunded. And for that reason I rise in support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to vote ``no'' on the Cox- Sensenbrenner amendment authorizing $40 million to be appropriated from the fiscal year 2006 budget to reimburse States and locals for the costs associated with having State and local law enforcement trained and certified by DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

Mr. Chairman, plain and simple, we are shirking our responsibility as a government by passing this mission on to local authority. If we have the responsibility for immigration and immigration enforcement, we should do our job. We should appropriate the money to the respective department, whatever the requirements are, rather than passing the buck to local law enforcement. Local law enforcement clearly will tell my colleagues we have enough on our plate now, do not give us further responsibility by giving us immigration.

So, Mr. Chairman, while I understand my colleague's reasoning behind the amendment, it is clearly something that allows us to put this responsibility on someone else.

I guarantee my colleagues, when we do this, it will come with another program in the not-too-distant future. We will give other responsibilities to the local level.

I am a former mayor and a former county supervisor. Knowing law enforcement at the personal level, I am convinced that we have more than enough to do at the local level. The Federal Government should do what it is required to do on immigration. Let us not pass the buck. Let us make sure that we take the immigration responsibility and retain it at the Federal level.

That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), a member of the committee.

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

(Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, as I have already indicated from my opposition to this amendment, we are moving toward making States and localities assume a Federal responsibility. This is not in the best interest of homeland security. We have certain things as a Federal Government that we should do. Immigration protection is one of those items.

I understand from my chairman that he is interested in trying to help, but at some point we have to do our job. What we need to do is provide the resources to the Department to make sure that the Department can do its job, not pass the buck to another State.

You have heard from my colleague who used to be a State trooper who talks about the difficulties in crossing the lines. I ask my colleague to consider that, but I also ask opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment for purposes of debate, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am in support of this amendment, as are the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

This amendment highlights the important need for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate the prioritization of the Nation's critical infrastructure with other relevant Federal agencies. By requiring the Secretary to enter such partnerships, the Department of Homeland Security can draw upon the institutional expertise of a variety of agencies.

This is critical for completing an accurate, comprehensive and thorough assessment of terrorist threats to our country's critical infrastructure. Having seen the national asset database lists for Mississippi, I believe the Department needs as much help as it can get. Our Nation can no longer wait for an accurate prioritization of our most valuable asset. This is why I join my other colleagues and encourage Members to vote yes on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. We have to do all we can to protect the flying public. As has already been said, our pilots are the last line of defense to protect the flying public. By training them with this program and providing all of the necessary background checks, there is no excuse for not making this program successful. I compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and join the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in support of this amendment, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Yes, Mr. Chairman

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

I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Terrorism experts have called the area between Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport in New Jersey ``the most dangerous two miles in America,'' an area that includes dozens of vulnerable chemical plants, oil storage tanks, refineries, and other critical infrastructure systems within close proximity of Manhattan and the densely populated cities of northern New Jersey.

Experts estimate that a terrorist attack in this area could pose a potentially lethal threat to 12 million people living within a 14-mile radius. The Menendez amendment would require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on how to coordinate and protect the people and infrastructure in this particularly vulnerable region.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the author of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate by 2 minutes on each side.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and others have indicated the position that the minority supports.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise and express strong support for the amendment of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). It sends a strong and simple message to Congress: do not raise aviation passenger fees.

I strongly believe that raising fees will place an additional burden on the flying public and could weaken the economic strength of domestic commercial aviation.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Hooley amendment and urge my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of this important amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a fair, structured rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

It provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

It waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report and makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report.

These amendments may only be offered in the order printed in the report and only by the Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or a demand for the division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its underlying legislation, the first ever Homeland Security authorization legislation. The rule before us today is a fair rule that will allow for consideration of 25 amendments to the legislation, 13 of which are sponsored by a Member of the minority party, 10 by Members of the majority party, and two which enjoy bipartisan sponsorship.

This bill, brought to the floor today by the leadership of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), empowers the core mission of the Department of Homeland Security, which is, first, to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; second, reducing America's vulnerability to terrorism; and, third, responding to and recovering from terrorist attacks if some tragedy does occur.

It accomplishes this necessary and singularly important goal by ensuring that the Department has the resources and the authority it needs to prevent and prepare for terrorist attack, and to respond to and recover from an attack if one does occur.

Through the authorization of over $34 billion in homeland security spending in 2006, this legislation will ensure that our Nation's highest funding priorities are met. It also includes a number of other legislative and oversight measures to strengthen and improve the safety of Americans here at home, including:

Deploying counterterrorism technologies within 90 days so that Federal, State, local, and private sector officials can prevent domestic terror;

Funding 2,000 additional border patrol agents;

Assessing the effectiveness of operations at the Departments of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that spending on these programs is efficient and effective;

Consolidating the current background check system, so that individuals can be prescreened by checking their names and biometric identifiers against terrorist watch lists and other criminal databases;

Adopting risk-based cargo screening, and expanding the number of foreign ports where Customs and Border Patrol agents screen incoming containers from 36 to approximately 50 ports;

Improving information analysis and infrastructure protection recruiting;

Improving nuclear and biological intelligence;

Establishing a one-stop shop within the Department of Homeland Security for reliable, comprehensive, and accessible open-source intelligence information and analysis;

Providing better information to local leaders by requiring that any threats be communicated in a manner that limits confusion and operational conflicts;

Clarifying the color-based threat system so that specific information is given directly to regions, States, localities, and private sector industries;

Creating a National Terrorism Exercise program to coordinate and establish minimum standards for all Federal, State, and local terrorism drills; and

Providing for greater Federal, State, and local homeland operations collaboration that needs to take place.

By providing leadership and guidance on these issues and many others, Chairman Cox and his committee have provided this House with a product that I believe is effective in providing for the security of our homeland, which deserves the support of every single Member of this body. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that it makes me so proud to hear the gentlewoman from New York talk with glowing admiration not only about how important this Homeland Security bill is but about the hard work that went into it and how it became a part of a better product.

Yesterday, the Committee on Rules had an opportunity, virtually all day, to hear testimony from Members across the aisle talk about ideas and thoughts and suggestions that they had that would make this a better bill. The chairman, the gentleman from California, not only listened to them but he worked with the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), on perfecting this bill by adding in amendments.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of amendments that were added to this, perfecting the bill, perfecting the process, but more importantly giving an opportunity for Members of this body to make sure, from their own perspective, that Homeland Security became more effective by providing the information that was needed to address their local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

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

We have had a number of our colleagues make observations, just as the gentleman from Oregon did, about the importance of not only the debate that takes place here in the House but also about our desire to make homeland security even better, more robust, more dynamic, aiming at the threat. We heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talk very eloquently about the need for border control, for us to make sure that those people who might be terrorists or may be criminals entering this country.

I am sure we will hear a debate about cargo, cargo ships, thousands of containers that come to this country every day, the commerce of this country that is affected. We know that we talked yesterday in the Committee on Rules about the Canadian border and how the Canadian border needs the attention that they not only deserve but also with the flow of goods and services with the economies that are affected and products and services that are denied when the backlogs occur. Each of these has been a part of the arguments, the debates, the discussions that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has taken into account, has made sure that he has taken them to the Homeland Security Department, has spoken with the administration.

It just makes me very proud today to see our Members who are able to cogently come up with not only good answers and better decision-making processes but an abiding faith in what we are doing here today. I am proud that this debate, some 5 hours of debate that will take place today about this very important subject where Members of Congress are able to come down and really identify their specific suggestions that they have. I think this process works. I think the Committee on Rules was wise in what it did. I think the gentleman from California knew when he put together this rule with our leadership what it would look like. It is working today.

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

Mr. Speaker, we spoke earlier about how Members provided information back and forth not only to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the Homeland Security Department but also about how we were able to have a Committee on Rules meeting yesterday with thoughtful ideas that were presented yesterday. Our next speaker was a part of

those thoughtful ideas. He not only sat through hours of testimony, quizzing Members about their questions and comments, things that would make things better, but also a few ideas himself.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has noted, there will be 5 hours of debate today. There will be a Democrat substitute that will be included, some 200-plus pages that will allow not only full debate under these 5 hours but an opportunity for Members to come down, just as the gentleman from Massachusetts has done, to provide each Member with information about how important this bill is. And I am really proud of the time that we have. The Committee on Rules did a great job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have had a great debate. A few people showed up and expressed some concern about what they had, and I would like to address that so that the Members are aware. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) did come before the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules did not put it in the bill, but it is not in the Democrat substitute either, so the Democrat leadership chose not to include that in their substitute.

We also had some discussion about air cargo. For those Members who are interested, air cargo will be in the substitute; it will be in section 519. Republicans addressed the issue. We have doubled the number of air cargo inspectors that would be at the airports to make sure that we are looking at the cargo.

Today has been a good debate, an opportunity for Members to come forth and speak about the important things about this bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has our admiration. He has done a great job. The Committee on Rules I believe did a fair job. I would also at this time like to thank the White House and the liaisons that the White House provided to us, Brian Conklin for his great leadership, Chris Frech for his hard work with us, and certainly their superstar at the White House, Elan Elinjg, who took time to make sure that Members were updated, not only about the position of the administration, but about how they could work closely with Members of Congress.

So I think today has been another successful opportunity for us to begin the 5 hours of debate that will take place today where every Member will have an opportunity to come down and express themselves and where we will have a Democrat substitute that will be over 200 pages where they are able to express the things which they believe are best. Members of Congress will be able to vote and a decision can be made today. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, famed writer and political commentator George Orwell once wrote that ``people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.'' That statement should have a special resonance for Americans in today's world.

We are fighting a new kind of war every day here in America. Our struggle against terror is one that requires us to focus our resources inward like no time in our history, because today the battlefields are the streets and sidewalks of this country and not some faraway land.

We have to ensure that our government is prepared to responsibly address any threat that imperils the peace and prosperity of this Nation. Only then will the American people truly sleep peaceably through the night. That is why this Homeland Security authorization bill is critically important, because it represents the blueprint of our homeland defense and our collective peace of mind for many years to come.

With such a weighty mandate, I would like to congratulate the Committee on Homeland Security in putting together their first committee authorization. But I would have wished

today for an open rule, and we are still faced with serious issues of accountability and trust in the management of the Department of Homeland Security. This is in no small part as a result of the Bush administration's unwillingness to fill critical job vacancies at the senior levels of the agency.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has had two Secretaries and three Deputy Secretaries in 2 years. Today, 42 percent of the high- level political positions inside the agency are vacant or staffed by people who have already announced their departures. This lack of stability at the Department has impacted the agency's ability to meet its mandate effectively.

For example, in my district, the Peace Bridge, which connects Buffalo to Canada, continues to face obstacles in moving to alleviate traffic congestion. Last December, the United States and Canadian governments agreed to move forward with a shared border management initiative which would remedy the situation. But it has been stalled by endless bureaucracy and lack of accountability at the Department of Homeland Security.

But it is not just a lack of accountability that has plagued the agency. Our country's epic struggle against terror is also a struggle against fear. We recently discovered that the infamous homeland security terror alerts, which were raised so often in the months leading up to the Presidential election, and rarely since, if ever, were repeatedly elevated over the objections of the Homeland Security Secretary and his staff. The terror alerts were raised on what Secretary Ridge himself called ``flimsy evidence'' by individuals in the administration who were really aggressive about raising it, which shows that they were used for political purposes.

I know I am not the only one who questions why in the 5\1/2\ months since election day there has not been a single terror alert. Perhaps Mr. Ridge's comments put the answer in the proper perspective. That constitutes a violation of trust with the American people, and we cannot afford that in this war on terror. We ought not to employ the tactics of fear as a means of control in our pursuit to keep the homeland secure. Such draconian measures are not in keeping with the spirit of America.

It is beneath us as a Nation to have partisan politics injected into our national security apparatus in an ugly and manipulative way. We dare not trade in a currency of fear, but rather should strive to liberate ourselves from fear through awareness of our world and an honest understanding of the challenges which lay before us.

I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree on this principle, and I am pleased that the committee has seen fit to include more specific criteria for how the terror alert is and is not to be utilized. Likewise, the appropriation bill passed yesterday by a nearly unanimous vote also included measures that promise to provide a higher degree of accountability at the agency, accountability that I am sure we all agree is sorely needed.

Despite the serious problems at DHS, which still must be addressed, there is much in this authorization bill that I believe every Member of Congress will support. As a representative from a border State, I am pleased to see that the legislation authorizes $1.9 billion, enough money to hire 2,000 additional border agents this year, agents sorely needed. This funding would mark a welcome change in the administration's approach to handling border security issues away from an economically disastrous agenda of imposing passport requirements on our citizens who want to cross our northern border and towards a more sensible policy of effective border enforcement, one which maximizes security resources and safeguards the freedoms and options our citizens and our trading partners deserve.

But that would require that the majority had the will to actually spend the border security dollars and not just authorize them. It is, after all, easy to talk tough about securing borders, but we need action. We need a true commitment from this Congress to put more agents in the field. We seem to have an ongoing problem here with leadership when it comes to this issue where reality does not measure up to rhetoric. It is my hope that this time will be different.

The House leadership's decision to include in this rule two amendments of mine suggests there may be room for common ground on the critical border issue after all. Clearly, the most effective tool we have to protect our borders is knowledge. Those of us who represent border economies understand how important the unencumbered flow of commerce across the northern border is to continued economic growth and to prosperity. The NEXUS program, we hope, will reduce the long waits at the border and allow an unprecedented level of security. It will be smart management, and I look forward to the upcoming debate on the amendment.

But there are many others, I know, we would all like to debate here on the floor today; but of 89, only 25 were ruled in order, which is less than 30 percent. And as I have said previously, I do wish this had been an open rule because we need to spend the extra time and we need to allow our colleagues to consider more ideas on how to improve the homeland security. Is that not what democracy is about, debate and deliberation? Our framers thought so, and I think so, and I think most of my colleagues and most Americans think so.

One amendment we will not consider today, which I regret, would have established a much-needed railroad security plan for America, which we do not have. And, incredibly, an amendment which would have required all cargo transported on commercial and passenger airplanes be inspected for explosives was not allowed. How could we not allow a debate on a critical homeland security issue such as this?

My colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), offered an amendment which would have upgraded security requirements associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials. But, inexplicably, it too was blocked from consideration.

But just as we cannot afford to live in fear in this age of terrorism, we also cannot fear engaging in genuine debate in consideration of those matters which may be controversial for some, but which are clearly important for the safety of all Americans. The free flow of debate and democracy are a hallmark of our American values, which this House was designed to embody. They are the core values which separate us from those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. And here in the cradle of democracy, we diminish those most American of values at our own peril.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question and, if it is defeated, I will amend the rules so that we can consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) rejected by the Committee on Rules last night.

Mr. Speaker, the Barrow-Markey amendment would direct the Department of Homeland Security to promulgate regulations upgrading the security associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine, which is toxic by inhalation, and those materials that are flammable or explosive.

Mr. Speaker, extremely hazardous materials are transported through virtually every community in the Nation. Several serious incidents have taken place that have clearly demonstrated the threat that exists whenever they are involved. I am disappointed that the Republican leadership failed to include this important amendment, an issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. But, unfortunately, under the rule, unless we defeat the previous question, we will not be able to.

As always, I want to emphasize that a no vote on the previous question will not prevent us from considering the Homeland Security bill, but will allow Members to vote on the Barrow-Markey amendment. However, a yes vote will prevent us from doing so.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote, and request a no vote on the previous question.

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

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