Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this Homeland Security conference report will be the third and one of the most important appropriations conference reports considered by Congress this session. In the wake of a wholly inadequate Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, it is this Congress's responsibility to provide the Department of Homeland Security with appropriate funding and resources. That funding must also come with proper direction and full oversight.

Unfortunately, this conference report falls far short of that standard. Hurricane Katrina revealed several institutional problems with the Department of Homeland Security, in particular with the structure of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Over the past decade, FEMA has been stripped of its duties; folded into a disorganized department; and, most disturbingly, staffed by inexperienced people.

With this bill, Congress had a golden opportunity to address the institutional disarray that has tarnished FEMA. Instead of doing the right thing, this conference report provides absolutely no guidance on how to spend billions of taxpayer dollars or how to properly restructure the agency. Furthermore, Secretary Chertoff has insisted on restructuring the Department again, for the sixth time, without any congressional oversight and hearings. He has proposed to place FEMA in the Preparedness Directorate, further splintering the agency's ability to respond quickly to disasters.

Disaster preparedness and response are intrinsically linked. FEMA must be responsible for both. Separating these duties will only hinder the Federal Government's responsiveness potential. This systematic dismantling of FEMA's authority was the primary cause of the botched Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Secretary Chertoff's proposal to restructure FEMA will not solve the institutional deficiencies of the agency. While FEMA was not perfect before it merged into the Department of Homeland Security, at least there existed a level of expertise and skill and FEMA's director had immediate and direct access to the President of the United States.

Experience and professionalism have been missing from FEMA under the Bush administration. Michael Brown, a product of political cronyism, is the perfect example of what happens to government without thorough oversight. Instead of having somebody with disaster experience, President Bush ended up with an Arabian horse specialist.

A year ago, when the State of Florida was ravaged by multiple hurricanes, State and Federal officials complained about the lack of preparedness and inadequate response from FEMA. Counties that were hit the hardest were overlooked while other counties that storms avoided received millions of dollars in funding. Florida lawmakers this past March urged two House committees with FEMA jurisdiction to hold hearings on what went wrong.

Even after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit 6 months later, the Republican leadership has continued to block the Florida delegation's oversight request. And now we are all paying the price for neglecting oversight of FEMA, most notably the thousands who paid with their lives and their livelihoods.

The House Republican leadership has consistently ignored proper oversight of this administration. It is clear that they do not want to ask tough questions or demand straight answers. This Congress has become a rubber stamp, and the results have been disastrous.

Mr. Speaker, Brownie did not do a ``heckuva'' job and neither has this Congress. Unfortunately, when given the opportunity to do the right thing, the Republican leadership has once again acted against the best interests of the American people. Their response to these disasters and to these deficiencies at FEMA is to install a partisan committee that will simply gloss over the most important issues surrounding the failures of FEMA. Mr. Speaker, that is not oversight. That is a whitewash.

A more effective FEMA can only be created when independent, experienced disaster specialists analyze the problems that Katrina exposed and then identify solutions. Restructuring FEMA without independent input and oversight is premature and will further plague its prevention and response capabilities.

And not only is the oversight missing, Mr. Speaker, but so is the money. While my Republican friends will highlight the $1.3 billion increase over fiscal year 2005, let us be clear that this increase is only barely above the current rate of inflation. In reality, there are several funding cuts in this conference report that significantly and adversely affect the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA programs.

This conference report cuts State and local preparedness funding by $585 million, a 19 percent cut from last year. Fire grants are funded at $60 million below the fiscal year 2005 level. Disaster relief funding is cut by $370 million, and pre-disaster mitigation funding is cut in half. Let me repeat that: Cut in half.

How can we justify cutting disaster relief and mitigation funding by $420 million? Did Katrina not demonstrate how severely unprepared and ill-equipped FEMA really is? What kind of rationale is this?

Thankfully, there are some programs in this conference report where funding levels are justifiable. For instance, the Coast Guard's ``Deepwater'' program is fully funded at $933 million, due mostly in part to the Guard's extraordinary rescue efforts after Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the majority is thinking. Every single disaster, pre-disaster, preparedness and response program should be fully funded. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita should have taught us that. And along with full funding, there needs to be proper oversight. Neither the two enacted relief packages totaling over $60 billion nor this conference report provide any meaningful oversight. None. No check on the flow of the money. No way to ensure the proper awarding of contracts through competitive bidding. No accountability.

Thankfully, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, offered an amendment in conference requiring the Department of Homeland Security to provide detailed information on how Katrina disaster relief funding is being spent. The specific requirements laid out in this provision force the Department of Homeland Security to send Congress weekly reports that detail any and every kind of disaster relief spending, and I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering this important amendment. It is an important step in the right direction, a step toward accountability.

I am also grateful to the efforts of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, who fought hard last week to instruct the conferees not to accept Secretary Chertoff's reorganization program.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this conference report will pass by a comfortable margin, but it will not have my vote. We can do so much better than this. We need to do so much better than this, and I hope in the coming weeks and months, both the majority and the Democratic side will work together to achieve a product that we all can be proud of and that will truly ensure the homeland security of the people of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas. One of my problems is the fact that this bill cuts some very important programs that I think do not deserve to be cut. It cuts first responder grants, which I think is a mistake. It underfunds communications equipment for first responders.

Just like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina highlighted the problem of first responders having incompatible communications equipment. When Hurricane Katrina hit, emergency personnel were on at least five different channels and were hampered in communicating with one another. Yet this conference report continues to underfund interoperable communications systems. It cuts the disaster relief account. It cuts predisaster mitigation. It underfunds port security. It underfunds rail and transit security. It fails to include dedicated funding for chemical plant security. I could go on and on and on.

Homeland security is not for free. If we are not funding these agencies, and we are not funding the necessary personnel to be able to protect our country, then we are not doing a very good job at homeland security. One other thing I will say to the gentleman from Texas. I believe that we have an obligation when we spend the taxpayers' money that there is thoughtful and effective oversight. We have allocated billions and billions of dollars already in response to this hurricane with no oversight. I do not want taxpayers' money wasted, and I am uncomfortable with the fact the bill provides no oversight. The gentleman may not be, but I am.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a leader on a number of homeland security issues.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that is missing in this bill is the lack of oversight. That is why some of us have great concerns about it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

First of all, let me begin by saying something nice to the majority. I would like to point out for the record that this is the first conference report in this Congress that has lain over for 3 days as required under the rules of the House, so I want to thank the Speaker and the majority leader and the members of the Rules Committee for following the rules of the House for a change. I hope we can do this more often.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me address the substance of this conference report. This conference report cuts first-responder grants. We have heard that over and over and over again. And let me just say to my colleagues on the other side who say that somehow there is money in the pipeline, well, there shouldn't be any money in the pipeline. The need is that great.

The first responders in this country, our fire fighters and our police officers, they do not want resolutions of support. They do not want your eloquent speeches. They do not want your meaningless proclamations. What they want, what they need are the resources to be able to do their job, to protect their communities.

And yet, under this conference report, three of the four major grants programs for first responders in the Department of Homeland Security are cut below fiscal year 2005 levels. It underfunds communications equipment for first responders. We have been talking about that over and over throughout this debate.

But what is particularly astonishing to me is that, despite what we saw in Katrina, where people could not communicate with each other, similar to what happened during 9/11, the conference report actually provides $15 million or 36 percent less than the amount the House provided for this equipment in the original bill back in May before Katrina ever struck.

Now we have heard a lot on the other side about budget priorities and limited moneys and funding shortfalls. But we have to get this right. This is about protecting our homeland security. This is government's first responsibility, to protect the people of this country.

You never talk about budget priorities. You never talk about money shortfalls when it comes to tax cuts that benefit mostly the richest people in this country. But yet when it comes to protecting people, providing the equipment that our first responders need, providing the equipment our communities need to protect themselves against a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, somehow we do not have the money.

I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the conference report.

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

Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is the standard rule for the consideration of a conference report. It waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This rule, brought to the floor today by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, funds our most important Federal programs aimed at securing this Nation against terrorist attacks.

It provides $30.8 billion for the operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2006, an increase of $1.4 billion above fiscal year 2005 and $1.3 billion above the President's request. The conference report agreement reflects the DHS organizational structure recommended by the Secretary on July 13, 2005, and does not create any new aviation security fees.

This legislation secures our homeland first and foremost by protecting our borders and revitalizing immigration enforcement. It provides nearly two-thirds of the overall budget for the Department, $19.1 billion for border protection, immigration enforcement and related activities.

This represents an increase of $1.2 billion over funding in 2005 and $490 million over the President's request. These funds are used to support cutting-edge technologies for high-risk cargo screening, to expand cargo inspection at foreign ports, and to support a robust revitalization of immigration enforcement along our borders and around our Nation.

Among other security enhancing measures, this funding includes $1.8 billion for border security and control, funding an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents. When combined with this year's supplemental appropriations, 1,500 new agents will be hired in 2006. It provides for $3.4 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, funding an additional 250 criminal investigators and 100 Immigration Enforcement agents. When combined with this year's supplemental, 568 new ICE agents and officers will be hired for year 2006.

It provides $41 million for border security technology, including surveillance and unmanned aerial vehicles; $562 million for Air and Marine Operations to maintain the integrity of our borders and aerospace security, as well as drug interdiction; $94 million for the Institutional Removal Program, including an additional 100 agents; $40 million for implementation of the READ ID Act; $5 million to train State and local officials and officers to enforce immigration laws; $1 billion for immigration detention custody operations; and $135 million for transportation and removal of illegal immigrants.

This conference report also recognizes the active role that the Department of Homeland Security must play in disaster mitigation and relief efforts. It prioritizes spending on Federal response capacities as well as increased planning and coordination with the States.

To accomplish this, it includes $1.77 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund; $20 million for Urban Search and Rescue Teams; $20 million for FEMA catastrophic planning; $22 million for the National Incident Management System; $200 million for the Flood Map Modernization Program; a requirement that DHS develop guidelines for mass evacuation plans; and a requirement that DHS reports on the status of catastrophic planning in each of our 50 States.

This conference report also provides $3.3 billion for first responders, in the form of performance grants to high-threat areas, firefighters and emergency management. Since September 11, 2001, $32.1 billion has been provided to first responders, including funds for terrorism prevention and preparedness, general law enforcement, firefighter assistance, airport security, seaport security and public health preparation.

This conference report includes funding of over $1 billion for high- density urban areas, including $765 million for urban area grants, $150 million for rail security, $175 million for port security and $65 million for other infrastructure protection, $655 million for firefighter grants, $400 million for State and local enforcement terrorism prevention grants and $185 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants.

Finally, this conference report provides $1.5 billion for the research and development of leading-edge technologies and $625 million to protect our critical infrastructure and key assets. These funds will be used to test and transition these technologies for use by Federal, State and local officials. It will also support ongoing efforts to develop secure communication systems with Federal, State and local entities and continue efforts with the private sector to implement protective measures around this important infrastructure.

To accomplish this, the bill includes $538 million to develop radiological, nuclear, chemical, biological and high explosives countermeasures; $110 million for the research and development and testing of antimissile devices for commercial aircraft; $318 million to start up the new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to help coordinate global nuclear detection and tracking; $14 million to identify and characterize potential biological terrorist attacks; and $93.3 million for cyber-security technology.

Mr. Speaker, I could spend a lot of time listing the many strengths of this bill and the thoughtful and threat-based way that it funds the programs that keep American families safe. Instead, I want to take time to strongly support this legislation with an open rule.

I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work.

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

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts was very kind to enunciate and talk about the contributions that have been made on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats working together in an effort to make sure that Katrina is taken care of. I also take him at face value that he will not vote for this because there is not enough spending in the bill. There is not enough money that is being spent, and he outlined that money that he wants to spend.

The majority party does need to make sure that the bill that comes forth is balanced and one that maintains the priorities of this country. So we on this side are standing up in strong support of this not only well-balanced bill but really will allow equal distribution as we see the needs of this country and the spending and to control that which we do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, serving as a member of the conference, when you go and you look at an appropriations and tear apart where all the money goes and what the priorities are and what the needs are and work with the Senate, one of the most important attributes of getting a good bill is listening to both sides, Republicans and Democrats, and to understand those priorities as they relate not only to, in this case, homeland security, but really the needs of the entire country.

The next gentleman, who is a leader in this Congress, did exactly that. He took time with Hal Rogers and John Carter to understand the needs as expressed by this administration, as expressed by the Senate, and by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), who is a speaker who

also had an opportunity to serve on this appropriations conference in a detailed fashion and made sure that he looked at those priorities which were necessary for spending for this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) who, once again, is a gentleman who served on the conference report, who is a person, who is a veteran of the Committee on Appropriations, a person who sits directly on the border of the United States and Mexico; he is a person who has been involved for many years in making sure that tough questions were asked and that we made sure that a balance for delivery of money was given to agencies with an expectation of performance.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York is exactly correct. We do need more competition engaged in not only homeland security but all across our government. The last session of Congress, I had an opportunity to serve on the Select Committee on Homeland Security and had an opportunity to work very closely with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). As part of this appropriations conference, he very clearly and carefully brought forward thoughts and ideas, just exactly what our colleague from New York (Mr. Meeks) stated about the ability to create better competition but also to expect results. Several years ago the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) was the first Member of Congress to bring forward a threat-based funding analysis plan. That was that we would aim our funding at the most likely threats that our Nation would be facing. And it is this kind of leadership that has allowed us, and I know we all do not agree on this. I know that there are a lot of people that think you ought to divide up the pie and every State or every city get so much money and every first responder gets so much money. But that is not what this administration and not what this Congress believes is the right way to do that.

I am pleased right now to have as our next speaker the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and I would yield him 3 minutes.

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

I am pleased and proud today to have the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to lead us today as we have an opportunity to debate, discuss, and vote on this important appropriations bill for homeland security.

Mr. Speaker, I will admit to my colleagues we worked hard on this bill. It is a bipartisan effort. It was one that employed a lot of people with a lot of thoughts and ideas. We worked with the Senate, we worked with the administration, a lot of work, but what we have done is produce a package that is threat-based. It is based on those experts who see the threat that is aimed against the United States, and they are numerous. They are numerous. They are not in our largest cities, but along our border, but, Mr. Speaker, we have worked together to make sure that in a bipartisan fashion this was addressed, and I am pleased and proud today to say that this is a threat-based bill, based upon what the experts tell us is facing the United States today.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight the retirement of a very important person in the administration. He is a former commissioner of U.S. Customs; and under Homeland Security, he has been commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Judge Robert Bonner from Los Angeles, California, who has served this great Nation for a number of years as a Federal judge and once again in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Judge Bonner will be leaving in just about a month from his service to the administration; and Judge Bonner has been a man of not only substance and vision but a person who has offered Members of Congress his best advice on how best to deal with the threats against this Nation.

So I would like to highlight not only the service to this country that the Members of Congress have done in this appropriations bill but also working with the administration, with such fine people as Judge Bonner.

Mr. Speaker, I will confess to my colleagues that this bill that we have here today is aimed at averting and stopping the next terrorist attack that comes aimed at this country. I hope that we have put the best minds to this and that we are prepared.

I am prepared to tell my colleagues right now I support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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