Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to present the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. The bill provides just over $32 billion in discretionary funds for the upcoming fiscal year, that is $1.8 billion above the current year, providing ample resources to fund the Department's operations in 2007.

After 3 years, the Department of Homeland Security has made enormous progress, but much work remains. The past year has been challenging. We have seen military-like incursions at the border, learned of potential vulnerabilities within port security and witnessed a massive failure in our Nation's preparedness and response during Hurricane Katrina. It has not been an easy year.

I have watched the Department tackle these challenges, and have been forthcoming in both my criticisms and praise, and they deserve both. Now, in its fourth year of existence, DHS is still struggling to merge its 22 legacy agencies.

Basic business systems are not yet established. And there is a constant shuffling of responsibilities and positions. From one day to the next, it is hard to determine who is in charge of what effort. On top of the mundane job of simply managing a large bureaucracy of over 180,000 employees, the Department is often focused on managing the crisis of the day. Part of this is necessary. Katrina's aftermath certainly required the attention of DHS leadership.

But I do not think the Department should lose sight of its long range goals and diverse legacy missions, to deal exclusively with the latest crisis. Nor, do I think that we as a Congress can afford to be so caught up in today's crisis that we fail to provide balance, stability and aggressive oversight within the Department's operations.

The President's budget put a strong emphasis on two areas, borders and immigration security, and nuclear detection. These are certainly homeland security priorities which I support. But increases in these areas came at the expense of everything else, resulting in reduced funding for first responders, port security and legacy agencies such as the Secret Service.

The bill before you shifts some of these resources and provides a balance among all of the Homeland Security priorities. It gives the Department the tools, assets and direction it needs to prepare our Nation for both terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Since September 11, we have provided $217.6 billion for homeland security, including $116.9 billion for the Department itself. This does not include emergency appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

For the past 3 years, we have provided funds to get the Department up and running. But this year marks a turning point for the Department. It is 3 years old. It is already up and running. We now expect results. No longer will we tolerate excuses and delays due to reorganizations, personnel shortages and poor financial management. Those days are over. We need to have confidence that this money is making a difference and that as a Nation we are safer and better prepared.

The bill includes a number of initiatives designed to compel the Department to develop strategies and milestones for performance. To eliminate any ambiguity of Congressional intent, the bill fences funds until certain actions are performed. In fact, a total of $1.3 billion is withheld until we have strategic plans, expenditure plans, and better financial data throughout the Department.

The bill also balances funding across all programs, not just a select few. But there are some caveats. We give money to the Department, but we also require results. For port security, cargo security and container security, we include $4.185 billion, a significant sum of money, but not without strings.

There are stringent performance requirements, such as doubling the amount of cargo inspected, 100 percent screening of all cargo and the establishment of minimum security standards for all cargo containers.

It also requires that DHS double the amount of cargo screened for radiation. These requirements are in line with the recently considered SAFE Port Act, which overwhelming passed this House on May 4.

For border security and immigration enforcement, the bill is also generous. We provide $19.6 billion, including almost $4 billion for the Secure Border Initiative. Again, these funds do not come without strings. Strategic and expenditure plans must be submitted for this effort. Unless the Department can show us exactly what we are buying, we will not fund it. Since 1995, spending on border security has quadrupled from $5.1 billion to over $17.9 billion.

And the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled from 5,000 to 12,319. However, during this same period, the number of illegal immigrants has jumped from 5 million to an estimated 12 million people. The policy of more money and no results is no longer in effect.

We will not fund programs with false expectations. The American taxpayer deserves more. We learned many lessons, Mr. Chairman, from Hurricane Katrina. The Department has taken a number of steps to prepare for the start of the 2006 Hurricane season on June 1, including improvements to communications, logistics management, victim registration and debris removal.

However, much work remains. And we provide $493 million to build FEMA's operational capabilities, including 200 new staff to improve incident and logistics management, evacuations and debris removal.

The bill includes $3.2 billion for our first responders. This is in addition to the $5.1 billion that is still in the pipeline waiting to be spent, moneys from previous years. Here, too, we require results. And we put pressure on DHS to measure progress in preparing our first responders.

Since September 11, we have given the first responders, we have provided $37.4 billion. The question is, are they better trained? Are they better prepared? Are they better equipped? We do not know the answer to that, but we should. The bill includes a provision requiring DHS to develop a preparedness strategy and to measure the performance of first responders.

The bill provides $6.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and the air marshals, including $497 million for explosive detection systems, and $55 million for air cargo security. It also continues to cap the number of screeners at 45,000, ensuring that TSA will not rely exclusively on people to secure aviation but rather use smart technologies to screen for explosives and other contraband.

We must get out of the cycle of simply giving more money for people when technology in many cases provides a better answer. The bill includes $500 million for the domestic nuclear detection office. Much work has been done in this area over the past year, and the office has made significant progress in the areas of detection technologies and

coordinating Federal efforts. This work deserves our continued support.

Finally, I would like to point out that the bill includes $1.3 billion for the Secret Service. I continue to believe the administration sometimes ignores the resource requirements of that agency. Despite dramatic increases in their workload for both protection and investigations, dollars have not been forthcoming.

This is a good example of where I think the administration is not paying enough attention to legacy missions, because they are so focused on bigger, more visible challenges.

This legislation, Mr. Chairman, supports our most critical Homeland Security priorities, keeps the Department on track to produce results and continues the committee's tradition of strict accountability. The recommendations in this bill reflect a balance among programs and operations, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. Chairman, this is the last year that my distinguished colleague, Mr. Sabo, will be serving in the U.S. House. He has chosen to retire to his home in Minnesota. I want to pay him the highest compliment that I can. He has been an able soldier. He has been a good work mate on this subcommittee. A good part of this bill is his handiwork. He is easy to work with. He reminds me a lot of that old adage that still water runs deep. He does not yell and scream. And yet he is extremely competent.

So I wish him well in his next life. I want him to know that we have enjoyed working with him. He has done a great service for his country. And we want to thank him for his distinguished service.

So, Mr. Sabo, thank you for being a great partner.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.014

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, especially about the staff. We would not be here obviously without the hard work that they have put into this bill. You and I are just sort of front people for the real work that goes on behind the scenes by staff.

So we do have, I think, the best staff in the business on both sides of the aisle. I join you in complimenting the staff. You may notice that all of the staff is wearing some form of purple in their clothing at some point in time. And there is a reason for that.

Purple is the favorite color of Michelle Mrdeza, who as we all know is retiring after this year from her labors. And so we are paying tribute to Michelle with purple. We wish Michelle well in her next life as well.

She has rendered tremendous service to her country. In trying to stand up this brand-new Department, the biggest reorganization in the government at least since 1948, in standing up this Department it has been real labor, toils and snares all along the way and they continue until this today. But Michelle and the staff of the subcommittee on both sides have just been marvelous in this labor of love of trying to stand up this huge agency, that we owe them more than we can ever tell them about. But that goes for the ranking member, too.

He has been a marvelous help-mate as we struggled along trying to find our way through a thicket to try to stand up this brand-new Department. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the distinguished chairman of the authorizing Committee on Homeland Security in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts to work with our subcommittee and commend him for his leadership in the Committee on Homeland Security. I also appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman on legislative provisions contained in the homeland security bill.

As this bill moves forward towards conference, I want to assure the gentleman that I am committed to retaining the key oversight provisions included in this bill. I also look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that measures consistent with the legislative agenda of the Committee on Homeland Security, particularly in the areas of border, immigration and port security, emergency preparedness and chemical site security. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from Texas, and I share his concerns and am committed to improving our border security and immigration enforcement programs. I know the needs of Laredo are great, but I also know that if we do not address the issue of border security comprehensively, we will continue to throw money at a problem without making measurable gains.

As I have said many times, if our approach is only to build a 20-foot fence, all we end up doing is increasing the demand for 21-foot ladders. We have to have a plan for addressing this very complex and challenging issue.

I will continue to work with the gentleman on his concerns and push the department to plan its work and work its plan.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the language in the Homeland Security Appropriations report is intended to support, not change or contradict, the SAFE Port Act's requirements and controls pertaining to third party validators. I share my colleague's concern that C-TPAT is only as good as its participants are credible. We must ensure that all C-TPAT members are validated to have a program that provides real security. That is why our bill aligns with the SAFE Port Act by requiring the validation of all certified participants.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very hardworking member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an awfully good case. The firefighters, of course, are extremely important in our Nation's efforts to defend itself, and this funding is vital. The gentleman and all the gentlemen make a good point, and I am prepared to accept the amendment. I would hope that we could conserve some time by doing that, but I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns about directing FEMA to predict over the next 20 years the effects of global warming on disasters and on FEMA's disaster relief services. FEMA's efforts should be focused on improving their capabilities to coordinate the Federal response to major domestic disasters and emergencies of all types.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, neither the Department nor FEMA has the personnel nor the expertise to conduct such a study. Global warming is not a homeland security priority, and we should not expect FEMA to take on that tremendous responsibility.

So I urge Members to vote against this amendment.

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

I understand the gentleman's concern, but would point out that such determinations are the work of the U.S. Trade Representative. This amendment would have more value if considered in the context of a bill that authorizes or funds the U.S. Trade Representative or the Department of State. As these activities are outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, that would require a new authorization.

Finally, the Department is still focusing on its primary responsibilities of protecting the homeland and has little expertise in making determinations about liability or trade activities.

For those reasons, I urge Members to vote against the amendment.

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

This bill provides significant resources for border security programs and is currently balanced among the many competing homeland security priorities. This amendment significantly upsets that balance and undermines the Department's ability to effectively integrate its business systems.

I have grave concerns about the offsets contained in this amendment, offsets that decimate DHS's management. Taking $40 million, almost half of the Secretary's budget, would effectively shut down all planning and management from DHS leadership.

We have already reallocated $50 million from the Office of Under Secretary to operational agencies in the bill itself. A $61 million reduction to this office would stop all work on the new personnel and payroll systems that are under development.

The subcommittee carefully reviewed the President's request and made significant modifications in order to ensure all mission areas had sufficient resources.

What this amendment does is unravel over 5 months of committee oversight. We have held 11 hearings this year, digging deep into the resource requirements of the Department and examining the most ominous threats facing the Nation. Almost without exception, all of the programs funded in this bill are critical. But what we can't afford to do is fund one program at the expense of all others.

This bill provides significant border security resources, administers tough oversight, drives DHS to properly plan its work and improve our border security and immigration enforcement programs. I would hope that we would turn down this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, Citizen Corps was originally established to create the Citizens Preparedness Guidebook to give Americans guidance on how to prepare in their homes, neighborhoods, workplaces, and public spaces. That work has been done.

Citizen Corps Councils are redundant. Work is being performed by State and local homeland security emergency preparedness offices. State offices are now robust enough after 9/11 to assess threats, help with community planning, evacuation and the like. These are government functions, not volunteer functions.

Citizen Corps functions are funded through other sources. Money comes to them from the Department of Justice through its Neighborhood Watch programs, its volunteers and police service programs, and the Department of Health and Human Services through its medical reserve program.

The subcommittee's 302(b) allocation could not accommodate all of the President's requests. The allocation of $32 billion does not fully adjust for the proposed increase in aviation passenger fees generating $1.3 billion in new revenue. Therefore, the committee has had to make some very tough choices, and this is one of them.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Sabo, here we go again, another amendment to take money from the Office of Secretary and Executive Management and the Office of the Under Secretary for Management. As Mr. Sabo has pointed out earlier, if we keep cutting this office, there will not be any office.

The gentleman's amendment would want to increase funding for DNDO by $36 million. Our bill already provides, Mr. Chairman, a 59 percent increase for this office above the current level. The committee reduced funding for DNDO below the budget request because we had concerns with two specific programs, Surge, s-u-r-g-e and transformational research. The Surge program is an effort to purchase and restore equipment for use in times of need, a good idea for a more mature program.

But at this point, resources are needed for detectors on the front lines. Transformational Research, though trimmed, is still an increase of 50 percent over last year. I think we are doing the best we can do by this office at this time.

I oppose the amendment.

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

Here we go again, cutting the Secretary and the Secretary for Management's office. If we keep doing this, we are not going to have an office. So I have grave concerns. The Office of the Secretary has already been reduced from 2006 by $30 million and the President's budget request by $2 million because of vacancies within the office. Further reductions would cut into critical funding to hire for the management and oversight of the Secure Border Initiative and to ensure that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., known as CFIUS, is adequately staffed to fully monitor possible foreign investment in critical infrastructure.

Border security and CFIUS issues span multiple agencies within the Department. Both of these issues have been in the news, of course, repeatedly, and the Department has been severely criticized for its lack of expertise and breadth of knowledge in these areas. If there is no one to work on the issues within the Office of the Secretary, I can assure you they will not be adequately addressed. Each DHS agency will work separately and independently from each other, keeping the stovepipes in place and ensuring that these criticisms continue.

I completely agree with the gentleman that the work being carried out by ICE's child exploitation unit, known as C3, is critical. This amendment would effectively double the operating budget of the C3. We have already increased funding for the center in our base bill. The bill we have presented to this body balances and reflects 5 months of careful oversight and review. The resources provided to C3, $5 million, are sufficient for the pending year. Additional funding is not necessary and could not be used.

So while I applaud the gentleman's priorities here, I find the increase not practical nor needed and ask our colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill by $3.5 million.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The amendment amends two portions of the bill, one taking from one section and giving back to another.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill is currently balanced among the many competing homeland security priorities. This amendment significantly upsets that balance and undermines the Department's ability to effectively integrate its business systems.

The subcommittee carefully reviewed the President's request. We made significant modifications in order to ensure all mission areas had sufficient resources, including restoration of funds for all first responder grants by adding $500 million; restoration of funds for critical law enforcement functions, such as the CPB air and marine operations, and the Secret Service. We increased funding for critical explosive

detection systems, significant funding and oversight for all aspects of border security and immigration reform.

What this amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is unravel over 5 months of committee oversight, 11 hearings, digging deep into the resource requirements of the Department, facing the most ominous threats facing our Nation. The fact is, almost without exception, all of the programs funded in this bill are critical.

But what we cannot afford to do is fund one program at the expense of all of the others. I have grave concerns about a $50 million reduction in the Office of the Under Secretary For Management. We have talked about this all day today.

This office is already $8 million below funding for the current year. Assuming that the under secretary of management would not lay off its current personnel, key projects would have to be terminated in order to absorb the $50 million reduction in this office.

The under secretary for management is responsible for consolidating the 22 agencies that formed DHS in 2003, 180,000 employees, 18 different personnel and payroll systems, and numerous financial management systems. We have made some progress. More is needed.

But a $50 million reduction in this office would ensure that the under secretary would have to stop all work on the new personnel and payroll systems that are under development now.

Because of the size of this offset, the under secretary would be prevented from the hiring of 25 new procurement employees that we provided for him. The Department has been unable to receive a clean financial audit in the first 2 years of its existence and has repeatedly been in the news for poor procurement decisions and inadequate contract management.

The 25 new procurement employees were requested to help the Department receive a clean financial audit, get a better handle on the Department's contracts.

As far as the proposed increase for rail and transit security, the responsibility of securing our Nation's rail and mass transit systems is shared between the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of transportation, and in partnership with the public and private entities that own and operate the Nation's transit and rail systems.

Since DHS was created, $436 million has been appropriated for rail security. With $150 million in this bill, we will have provided a total of $603 million for rail security in the last 3 years.

The Department of Transportation, Mr. Chairman, has also provided funding for rail and transit security, averaging about $40 to $50 million per year. That funding, coupled with the funding that we provide, equals the total amount contained in the amendment of the gentleman. We are giving you the money from two different places. So I think we have satisfied the gentleman's financial request, and I would hope that we would oppose and vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 836 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides under the rules of the House that the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, except as specified in the resolution. It authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.

Finally, as always, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit the legislation with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This bill sponsored by my friend from Kentucky, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Mr. Rogers, provides the funding needed to help secure our Nation's borders and revitalize immigration enforcement, enhance port security, support our first responders and empower them to effectively deal with disasters while also providing the fiscal discipline and oversight needed to ensure the Department is accomplishing its mission as effectively and efficiently as possible.

This legislation provides for a total of over $32 billion for the critical domestic and defense activities of the Department of Homeland Security. This funding is balanced along with an array of Federal programs that will ensure our Nation against terrorist attacks, including critical antiterrorism and border security activities, as well as emerging threats like nuclear detection and enhanced port container and cargo security.

This legislation provides nearly $20 billion for immigration enforcement and border security, including over $2.3 billion for border security, which will add 1,200 new Border Patrol agents for a total of 13,500 agents authorized as overall agents.

Over $4 billion for immigration and customs enforcement, which will add 1,212 new officers for a total of 11,500 overall agents. And $115 million for border security technology and tactical infrastructure.

Additionally, this bill allocates increased funding for Customs and Border Patrol air interdiction operations, maintenance and procurement. Last year the Department consolidated the Office of Border Patrol Air and Marine Assets with the Office of Air and Marine Operations in the newly formed CBP Air.

In 2004 and again last year, in 2005, I visited San Angelo, Texas, to witness firsthand how our air assets were being used to secure our southern borders and to prevent illegal drugs from entering this country.

Since then, I have strongly supported the balanced multimission AMO strategy of pushing out the border to combat illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking and smuggling of other illegal cargoes. I believe that a vigorous coordinated Department of Homeland Security air program is essential to our national security, and I continue to work closely with our Members, including Marcia Blackburn, Chairman Rogers, Chairman Peter King, Chairman Mark Souder, John Sweeney and others to ensure that multi-mission strategy be maintained.

It is interesting to note that this agency has taken the plan that they have initiated and are bringing it forward at this time to make sure that this Congress is aware of what their new strategy is as a result of this realignment. I applaud CBP Air's efforts to achieve greater operation and cost efficiencies; however, a multi-mission CBP Air is vital to a comprehensive border security strategy.

I am very pleased that this legislation details that this expectation, that while CBP Air continues to secure our border, this important function cannot come at the expense of other critical Homeland Security missions, and I will continue to work with Chairman Rogers to ensure that CBP Air follows through with the committee's recommendations.

Aside from these important border security and immigration enforcement functions, this legislation also addresses many other integral national security functions building upon the successes of recently passed legislation, this legislation provides funding over last year's level to secure our ports and in-bound cargo to prevent terrorists and criminals from exploiting the international commerce system.

It provides funding for Coast Guard port and water way security operations; funding for CBP Air cargo inspection and trade operations needed to implement the House's recently passed port security legislation; the funding needed to double the amount of cargo currently inspected; screening 100 percent of cargo through the Automated Targeting System; and to establish minimum security standards for cargo containers

Chairman Hal Rogers has addressed these needs for our first responders by providing over $3 billion to ensure their readiness. Since September 11, including the funds in this bill almost $37.5 billion has been provided to first responders for terrorism prevention and preparedness, law enforcement fire fighter assistance, airport security, sea port security and public health preparedness.

Finally, this legislation provides the oversight and Congressional guidance that the Department of Homeland Security needs to accomplish its mission effectively in areas such as port and container security, border security and immigration enforcement, first responder grants, air cargo and transportation security and disaster management preparation.

Chairman Rogers has included provisions to withhold funds to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security complies with these Congressional dictates and direction. I want to commend Chairman Rogers and others on his committee, including Zack Wamp, Tom Latham, Jo Ann Emerson, John Sweeney, Jim Kolbe, Ernest Istook, Ander Crenshaw, John Carter and Tom DeLay for their hard work and for working with me in the preparation of this important bill as we bring this bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this Congress I think has done a great job under the leadership of not only Hal Rogers but also Chairman Peter King in making sure that we are involved in a collaborative effort with the administration. There have been a number of things that we have seen differently than the administration, but there are a huge number of areas that we have worked together with this administration.

I am very proud of the leadership of this House on a bipartisan basis to address the issues, whether it is dealing with ports, whether it is dealing with our borders, or whether it is dealing with the individual processes that take place in trying to make sure that this Department runs on a better basis.

It is a big task that was undertaken by Homeland Security. It was a big task undertaken a couple of years ago. We know, all of us Members of Congress, that not everything has gone right. That is why we are doing this bill today. We are trying to make sure that we are addressing those things which have not worked as well, but we are also perhaps more importantly trying to put things into a perspective of funding those activities that we think that are important, providing the necessary money but with a strong sense of oversight to make sure this administration understands that while we are giving this money to them on behalf of the taxpayer, they accept it knowing that they have a duty and a responsibility, that we have a collaborative effort.

So I am proud of our oversight. I am proud of the things we are doing and

working on a bipartisan basis on homeland security, and I am proud of what this bill is all about.

A prime example I will give you is a man, Mike Conaway from Midland, Texas. Congressman Conaway has within his congressional district something I spoke about earlier, CBP Air, Customs and Border Protection Air. They are responsible for air interdiction programs. Congressman Conaway has been intimately involved in working with them to make sure that they have the necessary resources for looking over the horizon of those planes and other activities that may be associated with drugs coming into this country.

He has taken it by himself as a lead because it was an area within his congressional district, to make sure that he listened to the men and women, to pat them on the back in San Angelo, Texas, for the hard work they have done, to make sure the coordination and talking with them about the expectation of this Congress and the American people was done.

So I am pleased and can stand here before you today, Madam Speaker, to say this bill is important. This bill is a collaborative effort. This bill is bipartisan. This bill is something that many, many Members have had a huge part of working on and making sure that we are doing those things that prepare this country and continue to keep us prepared. But more importantly, we have had to put them in a priority basis. That is what this document is all about.

We will continue to work with this administration to make sure that homeland security is something that works for the security of this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Rules Committee from California for her words. I do understand that many people on her side of the aisle want to spend more money. That is a natural tendency: spend more money. Make sure my district is protected. Give money to me. Make sure all of these things are taken care of back home. And I share that same concern. I share that concern because we really do see need around our community.

However, with that said, there had to be decisions made that were on a priority basis. And we have learned a lot over the last few years about where the threats are and how money can and must be spent more efficiently and effectively.

I want the gentlewoman to know that I do believe that her attempts to secure money for her first responders are big needs back where she is from, but there are 435 of us who see it that same way also about the needs of our districts. And that is why this committee has worked very carefully with the authorizing committee to make sure that the money that we spend is on a need basis based upon the threats of this country.

So I admire the gentlewoman, Ms. Matsui, for her comments. I want her to know that it is a continuing process, and we will learn things as we move forward, and this bill is necessary for us to prioritize. That is what the Republican majority needed to do in this bill, and that is what we have done. And then along the way we have said ``no'' to a lot of our own Members also based upon the priority that is necessary to ensure the security and the safety of the entire Nation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate and respect the gentleman who will be retiring this year, Mr. Sabo, who appeared in the Rules Committee yesterday to provide not only feedback related to this bill and his thoughts and ideas but also to recommend additional points of consideration.

The gentleman has once again appeared on the floor of the House. The gentleman is aware that this would be the equivalent of legislating on appropriations. And thus the gentleman, Mr. King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has sent a letter to Chairman Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee, indicating that he preferred that this section 536 not be included within the rule or protected as a result of the committee deciding that it will have comprehensive hearings on this matter to develop legislation rather than what Mr. Sabo's legislation tends to do, but rather comprehensive, overall way to look at these high-security risks as it relates to these facilities.

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, May 23, 2006.

Hon. David Dreier,

Chairman, Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Dreier: The Committee on Appropriations

recently ordered H.R. 5441, the Homeland Security

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007, reported to the

House. This measure contains a number of provisions that

violate House rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislation

in a general appropriation bill. Included below is an

explanation of a legislative provision within the primary

jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security that

appears in the Bill, and I respectfully request that you not

protect this provision from points of order on the Floor.

Section 536 (page 62, lines 1-17), adopted as an amendment

offered by Congressman Martin Sabo at Full Committee markup,

requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue

security requirements for chemical facilities that the

Department deems to have the highest risk within six months

of enactment of the bill. The Committee on Homeland Security

is actively engaged in developing comprehensive legislation

to address the issue of chemical site security, and the Sabo

Amendment would undermine the Committee's efforts to provide

common-sense, risk-based solutions to this problem.

If you have questions regarding this request, please do not

hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Peter T. King,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the vice chairman of the Republican Conference.

Madam Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I respect and appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin for coming to the floor. Just as he did yesterday in the Rules Committee, he asked for us to spend more money, told us about priorities that were not funded properly, wants to get the money by raising taxes, wants to make sure that we know that the priorities should be done differently, and that I respect.

It is no surprise to anybody that the Democrat party sees things differently than we do about how you focus on the priorities of this Nation to ensure our security and our safety. I am worried about their plan. I have worried about their plan because I know that what they want to do is raise taxes. I know what they want to do; they want to spend more money.

Yet, I have only been in this House for some 10 years, and I remember, year after year after year, all they did was take money from the Border Patrol. Year after year after year, they took money from the CIA. Year after year after year, they took money out of the military. Then, all of a sudden, there are problems; they want to know, golly, why can we not get more money to fund the priorities of this Nation?

We are trying to balance what we are doing. I will confess to you that I am not as happy about how much money we are spending or not spending also, but we are trying to move things through on a process basis. That is where Hal Rogers and Pete King, the chairmen of these Republican committees, are doing a good job to balance that money that is available within the parameters of the budget assignment that has been given to this Congress.

So we are going to keep doing it, and we are going to keep struggling, and I thank the gentleman for coming forward. I hope he comes forward with all the spending bills, and I would be disappointed if he did not disagree with us. But I think the answer every time just about, spending more money and raising taxes in this country is not the answer but, rather, a priority basis where we are trying to aim at the threat against this country where homeland security is, and I think this is a balanced bill and I am proud of what we are doing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming forth and speaking very clearly. I think every single Member of Congress has an opinion on the effectiveness of homeland security, the effectiveness of FEMA. Our great chairman, Hal Rogers, yesterday came before the Rules Committee and spent a great deal of time. There was disagreement even among the ranking member and himself about how we continue giving these agencies not only the needed resources but helping them to reform what they are doing.

The gentleman from Chattanooga, Tennessee, Zach Wamp, who sits on the committee, is an example of one of the members of this committee, the Appropriations Committee, who is spending time to look very carefully at this effort. Congressman Wamp, being from Chattanooga, Tennessee, is in the middle of the storms that come and go not only across our southern borders, the gulf region, but also as a member of this Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee, and he is concerned about what the right thing to do is.

So I have confidence that people like Hal Rogers and Zach Wamp, who care about and can listen to the discussions from other Members, will eventually rectify this issue. Hal Rogers spoke very clearly that it is his intent right now to provide them the necessary resources and to continue working with them to where they are prepared and ready for this summer, having learned lessons from the past.

So I think, and I hope that money that we have provided now and the input that has been provided from Members of Congress in this authorization will go a long way to learning from the past and being prepared for the future.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York engaging in what I thought was a fair and balanced discussion about the homeland security appropriations bill. I think it is important that we remember that the balance of what we do says a lot about the success of this government to focus and make sure that we are prepared to ensure that this great Nation is protected by those very important first responders and the United States Government, which has this obligation.

During this time, we have spent a lot of time talking about Members of Congress who focused on the policy issues, but there has also been a lot of work that has been done by many other people. I mentioned my work with Customs and Border Protection. I would like to thank Major General Kostelnick at CBP Air for personally engaging me; Mike Conaway from Midland, Texas, on his thoughts and ideas for the work of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

We have also spent a lot of time at the White House. The White House has reached out to Members of Congress to find out their thoughts and ideas, and I think the President is well represented by his legislative staff who have come and listened to us and tried to take those thoughts and ideas back to formulate a balanced policy with the administration's position. I want to thank them:

Candi Wolfe; for his professionalism and grace and balance, Brian Conklin; for the star of the White House legislative team, Elan Liang; Chris Frech and

Peter Rowan, because they have been an equal part of the success of this important bill as it moves forward.

I am proud of what we have done. I ask for all the Members' support not only on this rule but the important legislation which makes sure that we have a balanced policy effort and funding effort to make sure this country is protected.

I thank God every day that America rises to its feet, has an economy that works the way it does and the strength and power to lead this world economy, and for strength and peace.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky who has been a leader in strengthening the Department and providing crucial oversight to its activities. I want to thank you and Ranking Member Sabo for your hard work on this bill, and of course join with you in commending Mr. Sabo in his many years of dedication to this Chamber.

This bill provides the necessary resources for the Federal Government's effort to protect the homeland. I rise to acknowledge a number of legislative provisions that are included in the bill and fall within the primary jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I do not seek to challenge the vast majority of these authorizing provisions, as I believe they are largely necessary to ensure the Department continues to improve its effectiveness. However, I do want to point out the strong jurisdictional interests of the Committee on Homeland Security.

As you know, the Committee on Homeland Security is actively working to advance much needed legislation specifically authorizing many of the activities of the Department, particularly in the areas of border security, cargo security, emergency management, and chemical site security. The Committee on Homeland Security will also in the near future advance a broad reauthorization bill for the Department.

A full list of my concerns is provided in a letter to the gentleman from Kentucky, which will follow my remarks.

Since I became chairman last year, we have had an excellent working relationship, and I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky's efforts to include me and my staff as you develop the bill. In light of the ongoing authorization activities of the Committee on Homeland Security, I respectfully request your commitment to work together to ensure that the legislative provisions in the homeland security appropriations bill compliment and do not conflict with parallel authorizing legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the gentleman for his commitment. And on a personal note, I want to thank him for the extraordinary cooperation he has given me during the 9 months I have been chairman of the authorizing committee.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, May 25, 2006.

Hon. Harold Rogers,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on

Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers: The House of Representatives has

scheduled for consideration today, H.R. 5441, the Homeland

Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This

measure contains a number of legislative provisions that are

in violation of House Rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits

legislation within a general appropriation bill. These

provisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee

Homeland Security. While I want to make clear the Committee

on Homeland Security's strong jurisdictional interests in the

legislative provisions summarized below, I do not intend to

assert procedural objections to the vast majority of these

provisions during House consideration of the Homeland

Security Appropriations Bill.

As you know, the Committee on Homeland Security is actively

working to advance legislation specifically authorizing many

of the activities of the Department of Homeland Security,

particularly in the area of border security, cargo security,

emergency management and chemical site security. The

Committee on Homeland Security will also, in the near future,

advance a broad reauthorization bill for the Department. In

light of the ongoing authorization activities of the

Committee, I respectfully request your commitment to work

together to ensure that the Appropriations Bill complements,

and does not conflict with, parallel authorizing legislation.

The provisions of interest to the Committee on Homeland

Security are as follows:

Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 2,

Line 16-Page 3, Line 2); withholds $10,000,000 until the

Secretary of Homeland Security submits a comprehensive port,

container, and cargo security strategic plan to

Appropriations and Homeland Committees. This plan must

require screening of all inbound cargo, double the percentage

of inbound cargo currently inspected, set minimum standards

for security inbound cargo and includes the FY 2007

performance requirements for port, container, and cargo

security.

Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 3,

Lines 2-15); provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security

must submit a multi-year strategic plan for the Secure Border

Initiative that includes a comprehensive mission statement,

an identification of long-term goals, an explanation of how

long-term goals will be achieved, schedule and resource

requirements, an identification of annual performance goals

and how they link to long-term goals, an identification of

annual performance measures used to gauge effectiveness

towards goal achievement by goal and an identification of

major capital assets critical to program success.

Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 4,

Line 8-12); provides that $10,000,000 will be withheld until

the Office of Chief Financial Officer of the Department of

Homeland Security submits monthly budget execution report to

the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 4,

Line 25-Page 5, Line 4); provides that none of the funds in

this section may be used for US-VISIT or ACE.

Title II, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator

Technology (Page 6, Line 12-Page 7, Line 14); withholds

$312,494,000 until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits

a plan for expenditures to the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees that must

comply with the Department of Homeland Security and

procurement regulations, includes a certification by the

Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland

Security and is reviewed by the Department of Homeland

Security Investment Review Board and the Government

Accountability Office.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (page 8,

Line 17-Page 9, Line 3); notwithstanding any other provisions

of law, this section requires that no funds may be provided

for Customs and Border Patrol overtime, from any source, if

the funds exceed the $35,000 cap, except for specific

circumstances determined by Secretary of Homeland Security or

his designee.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (Page 9,

Line 6-10); requires the Border Patrol to relocate its

checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least once every seven

days.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Automation Modernization account (Page

11, Line 8-Page 12, Line 9); withholds funds provided for the

Automated Commercial Environment until the Appropriations

Committee receives an expenditure plan on the program meeting

certain requirements and is reviewed by the Government

Accountability Office.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction,

Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account (Page 13,

Lines 2-11); prohibits the transfer of any Customs and Border

Protection aircraft or equipment to any other Federal agency

without approval of the House Appropriations Committee.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction,

Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account (Page 13

Lines 11-16); withholds $6.8 million until the House

Appropriations and Homeland Security Committees receive a

report on the April 25, 2006 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle mishap.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (Page

14, Line 24-Page 15, Line 5); waives other laws and states

that no funds may be provided for Customs and Border

Protection overtime, from any source, if the funds exceed the

$35,000 cap, except for specific circumstances determined by

the Secretary of Homeland Security or his designee.

Title II, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation

Security (Page 17, Line 1-11); restricts the Government share

of costs of projects to 75 percent for medium or large hub

airport and 90 percent for any other airport.

Title II, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation

Security Account (Page 17, Lines 11-20); provides that no

funding shall be provided except for items such as air cargo

inspectors, canines and screeners until a detailed a detailed

air security action plan that includes the criteria outlined

in the Bill is submitted to the House Appropriations and

Homeland Security Committees.

Title II, Transportation Security Administration,

Transportation Security Support Account (Page 18, Line 23-

Page 19, Line 6); withholds $5 million until the Department

of Homeland Security submits a plan for explosive detection

systems deployment and spending plan.

Title III, Under Secretary for Preparedness (Page 28, Lines

12-17); withholds $4.4 million until the Secretary of

Homeland Security submits the final National Preparedness

Goal to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Title III, (Page 28, Line 18-Page 31, Line 19); provides

that ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' grants

to State and local governments for terrorism prevention

activities shall be allocated as follows: applications for

formula-based grants and law enforcement terrorism prevention

grants; no less than 80 percent of any formula-based grant

and law enforcement terrorism prevention grant awarded to a

State shall be made available by the State to local

governments within 60 days after the receipt of the funds;

discretionary grants for port security shall be limited to

$200 million and distributed based on risks and threat;

discretionary grants for high-threat, high-density urban

areas shall be limited to $750 million; grants under this

section shall be made available to states within 45 of the

enactment of this act. States shall submit applications

within 90 days of the grant announcement; no less than 80

percent of any discretionary grant awarded to a State shall

be made available by the State to local governments within 60

days after the receipt of the funds. The Committee Report

also directs the Department to guarantee a 0.75 percent

``base'' to States under the State Homeland Security Grant

Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program,

thereby eliminating the Department's discretion under the USA

PATRIOT Act to provide that guarantee as a ``true minimum.''

Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information

Security (Page 32, Line 22-Page 34, Line 1); requires that

the methodology for collecting fees under this section be

fair and equitable and that such fees should reflect the cost

of the collection of such fees.

Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information

Security (Page 33, Line 18-Line 22); withholds $10 million

until the Department of Homeland Security releases the

National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information

Security (Page 33, Line 22-Page 34, Line 2); withholds $10

million until the Department of Homeland Security has

released its national security strategy for the chemical

sector report.

Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services,

Science and Technology, Management and Administration (Page

41, Lines 15-20); withholds $98 million until the Under

Secretary submits a detailed expenditure plan for fiscal year

2007 to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee.

Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services,

Science and Technology, Management and Administration (Page

42, Lines 3-9); withholds $400 million until the House

Appropriations Committee receives and approves a report

prepared by the Under Secretary that describes Science and

Technology's progress in areas detailed in the bill.

Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services

(Page 42, line 10-Page 43, line 3); provides $500,000,000 for

necessary expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office,

but withholds funds from the Sodium-Iodide Manufacturing

Program until DNDO demonstrates that the Advanced

Spectroscopic Portals will significantly speed commerce,

reduce costs of secondary inspection, or significantly

increase sensitivity over current radiation portal monitors.

Section 513 (Page 49, Line 17-Page 51, Line 6); withholds

funds for Secure Flight until the Secretary certifies that

Government Accountability Office has reported on ten CAPPS II

points outlined in Sec. 522(a) in P.L. 108-334.

Section 518 (Page 52, Line 14-17); directs the Secretary of

Homeland Security in consultation with industry stakeholders

to develop screening standards and protocols to increase the

use of explosive detection equipment to screen air cargo.

Section 519 (Page 52, Line 18-Page 53, Line 4); directs the

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to use existing

explosive detection systems equipment to the greatest extent

practicable and to provide quarterly reports on amount of

cargo carried on passenger aircraft screened to the House

Appropriations Committee. Such reports must be submitted

within 45 days of the end of the quarter, each day the

reports are late, $100,000 of funding will be withheld from

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his kind comments. It has been a privilege to work with you over these last 6 years; the first 2 years in the well-established Transportation Committee, the last 4 years in the brand new endeavor of Homeland Security, with the whole process of building and trying to help a new agency get going.

I have found you a great person to work with. I have the utmost respect for you. You are a real pro. You know what you are doing. And so I have great respect and admiration for the work that you do.

I would much rather have had a different role than being ranking member, but at the same time that I am expressing my gratitude to you, I also spent 4 years with Mr. Wolf on the Transportation Committee, and I found him also a very good person to work with, a person like you, open to suggestions from the minority, and a real pro in handling the transportation bill that I did with Mr. Wolf.

So despite my wishes that the roles would have been reversed, it has been a real privilege and honor to work with you. Also, throughout that time, we have had great staff to work with. On my side, Bev Pheto, from our minority staff; Marge Duske from my personal staff; and Chris Martin, who also has been with our committee, who has been great to work with; Mr. Obey, the ranking member of the full committee, who I have worked with closely; and on the majority staff, Michelle, who I expect you will be talking about her future, who has done a great job; and Stephanie, who I not only had a chance to work with on Homeland Security but worked with in Transportation before that; and Ted; and Jeff; and Ben; and Brett; and Kelly; and Will; and Meg; thank you to all of the staff. It is an excellent professional staff that we can all be proud of.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the chairman for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Rogers on this homeland security bill which is clearly better than the administration's budget request.

The President's proposed new fees and unrealistic discretionary budget cap left the Appropriations Committee with big holes to fill. As a result there are difficult homeland security funding choices to make. My concerns about our Nation's homeland security are not limited to funding. As I have said before, I had serious doubts in 2002 about the wisdom of creating a new Department of Homeland Security, and I voted against the bill. When I took on the role of ranking member on the subcommittee, I decided my job was to try and prove myself wrong. I'm sorry to say that the DHS bureaucrat mess is worse than I first imagined, and I still cannot say that my original judgment was wrong.

There is modest progress in some areas. However, time and again we see failures of planning, leadership and management at DHS. Americans are holding their breath as a new hurricane season approaches. And 8 months into the fiscal year, the States in the high-threat urban areas are still waiting for DHS to release hundreds of millions of dollars in 2006 homeland grants. We regularly see broad pronouncement from DHS without the proper detail or budgets to support them.

The new Secure Border Initiative is a perfect example. It appears that the administration SBInet plan is to hire private industry to think for us how to develop border security technology and systems and then sell us the solutions to them.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Rogers on this homeland security bill which is clearly better than the Administration's budget request. The President's proposed new fees and an unrealistic discretionary budget cap left the Appropriations Committee with big holes to fill. As a result, there are difficult homeland security funding choices to make.

My concerns about our nation's homeland security are not limited to funding. As I have said before, I had serious doubts in 2002 about the wisdom of creating a new Department of Homeland Security, and I voted against it. When I took on the role of ranking member on the Subcommittee, I decided that my job was to prove myself wrong. I'm sorry to say that the DHS bureaucratic mess is worse than I first imagined, and I still can't say that my original judgment was wrong.

There is modest progress in some areas. However, time and again, we see failures of planning, leadership and management at DHS. Americans are holding their breath as a new hurricane season approaches. And, eight months into the fiscal year, the states and high-threat urban areas are still waiting for DHS to release hundreds of millions of dollars in '06 homeland grants.

We regularly see broad policy announcements from DHS without the proper detail or budgets to support them. The new Secure Border Initiative is a perfect example. It appears that the Administration's SBInet ``plan'' is to hire private industry to think for us on how to develop border security technology and systems, and then sell us the solution they come up with.

Most recently, Mr. Obey and I asked GAO to look at how DHS is handling personal information in its ADVISE program. We have long been concerned about how the Department treats Americans' privacy and due process rights. ADVISE appears to be a new variation on the highly controversial Defense Department Total Information Awareness program, that was supposed to be terminated in 2003.

Regarding funding levels in this bill, my biggest reservations are about the fire grants, port and transit security and state training grant programs. Some of these programs are funded at last year's level, and some are below.

I am particularly concerned about fire grants, which is one of the most successful programs that the Department administers. This bill cuts fire grants by $109 million, or 17 percent, below 2006. Our nation's firefighters have great needs that cannot be met at the funding level in this bill. I will offer an amendment later to restore fire grant and SAFER funding to slightly above the FY06 level.

We still have serious gaps in air cargo security. This bill makes no real headway in closing them, and port security grant funding is also lower than I would like to see.

This bill does not fund all of the additional border patrol agents and detention beds called for in the President's February budget request. Since his speech last week, we are still trying to understand the new initiatives--and the costs--that the President proposes.

You can be sure, however, that the price tag for meaningful border security and immigration services and enforcement will be very steep. It will be far more than the roughly $19.4 billion in this bill (9 percent above 2006) that is attributed to border security and immigration.

As an example, individuals in my district--and I suspect yours--have waited more than two years for the federal government to run security name checks to process their immigration paperwork. These people are doing things legally. As far as I can tell, the funding the President proposes in his new plan won't address this issue. I can only imagine the size of the backlog that would be created by his plan or other significant changes in immigration law.

I make these observations not to criticize the Chairman. I simply want to clarify for

Members that even though this bill increases homeland security funding, it does not get us where we need to be in protecting the nation.

Lastly, I am very concerned that--nearly 5 years after 9/11--the federal government is still failing to secure the vast majority of chemical facilities in this country. They are prime targets for a catastrophic terrorist attack, and there is precious little being done to protect many of them.

The administration acknowledges the chemical security dilemma we face, but will not act without new legal authority to make and enforce chemical security regulations. The Congress--for more than four years-- has failed to act. Competing legislation in the House and Senate authorizing committees has gone nowhere. What are we waiting for?

I was very disappointed that the Rules Committee refused to protect my chemical security language--Section 536--which was added to this bill in the Appropriations Committee. These provisions would give DHS the legal authority that Secretary Chertoff says he needs to regulate U.S. chemical facilities that pose the greatest risk to Americans.

Congress addressed a small part of the chemical security problem in 2002. We enacted security requirements for chemical facilities on ports under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and the Coast Guard is doing a good job of enforcing them. Under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, the EPA also oversees security at the nation's drinking water facilities. Section 536 would not re-regulate them.

The problem is that there are thousands of other chemical plants and storage facilities without federal security standards or oversight. An attack on one of them has the potential to kill or injure tens of thousands of people. DHS has said that 20 percent of the 3,400 chemical facilities it identifies as ``high-risk'' adhere to no security guidelines. Yet, Congress appears content to leave security at these facilities to the good conscience of their operators.

I urge my colleagues to refrain from making a point of order against the chemical security provisions in this bill. The American people have waited too long for Congress to take responsible action to prevent a catastrophic attack on a chemical facility.

If the Congress produces chemical security legislation that the President can sign into law this year, then the Section 536 would be unnecessary. I suspect, however, that Congress will adjourn without doing so. And then--without Section 536--where will we be? Will the American people have to endure another year without chemical security protections?

In closing, I will say that this is not a perfect bill. Given the allocation provided, however, it is one that I will support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for the purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Andrews, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire.

This amendment increases by $111 million funding for the fire grant and SAFER programs, bringing appropriations to these programs to slightly above the 2006 level.

Fire and SAFER grants funding in the bill is currently $109 million, or 17 percent below 2006. The bill funds the regular grant program at $500 million, $40 million below 2006, and the SAFER program is funded at $50 million in the bill, which is $69 million below the 2006 funding level.

My amendment would eliminate these fire grant cuts. The amendment

is offset with reductions in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, some from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and some from the funding for the Science and Technology Directorate. The funds from the Science and Technology are from $246 million in unobligated funding that is carried into 2006, and it is likely a large portion will carry into 2007, which is why I think the 2007 funding can be reduced.

Mr. Chairman, it is a good amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the word.

I just wanted to rise and agree with the chairman. This is an amendment that should not be adopted. We have already spent additional significant resources on the border. We are also starting the SDI program, the Secure Borders Initiative. I happen to think it is not well planned, but my assumption is that programs like this would be part of whatever this grand scheme is that is being developed.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I would make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.

We made some modest cuts in the Office of Under Secretary in our first amendment as related to fire grants which was adopted which I thought was okay to do; but I notice a whole host of amendments are funded by additional cuts to that same office.

I am curious if we roll votes and eventually there are more cuts than money exists, what happens? I understand this amendment takes an additional $60 billion out of the office. There are others coming with several million. There is a whole array of amendments, all of which take money from this particular office.

My understanding is that Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Marshall both have amendments to page 3 on line 15, so I assume what the Chair is saying is that if the gentleman redrafted his amendment before we moved to some place beyond Pascrell and Marshall, he would be in order to offer a revised amendment.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, there is a difference between real security and rhetorical security. Today it is easy to see which one the Congress is committed to. We received what was perhaps the greatest wake-up call in the Nation's history on September 11, 2001.

And the failure of our national security personnel on that day should have been the catalyst for an unprecedented strengthening of our system. But in ways that mattered most, it did not happen. In more than 4 years, this Congress has failed to properly fund the Nation's first responders in spite of their historic and heroic performance on that terrible day.

In fact, the year's funding levels are $100 million less than last year's. In 4 years, Congress has also failed to secure the Nation's chemical plants. Over 300 plants nationwide, each with a capacity to kill 50,000 or more people if they were attacked, are left with security un-upgraded.

What many experts consider the single greatest vulnerability to our security today, our ports, has not been addressed; 5 years after 9/11, 95 percent of

cargo can containers that pass through our ports are never inspected in any way. And after all we have heard lately about border security, the Congress has refused to pay for the border agents or detention facilities needed to enforce the immigration laws that we pass.

Madam Speaker, while I speak of the failings of Congress to invest in real security for our people, it is critical to remember which party has been in charge since 2001. Since that time, Democrats have tried again and again to get our Republican colleagues to back up their words with actions.

We have authored numerous amendments to increase funding for critical and essential national security programs. This year we presented an amendment to provide an additional $3.5 billion for border, port aviation and disaster preparedness programs. And I understand that for $1.5 billion, we could give every port on earth the ability to check cargo.

The Democrats wanted to pass funding that would support 1,800 new Border Patrol agents, more than the 800 more immigration investigators and 9,000 new detention beds. We authored legislation to fund 500 new radiation monitors to inspect cargo and increase funding for public transportation by two-thirds.

And it was a Democratic bill that would have given our first responders $600 million more with which to protect themselves as citizens of the country. All of these amendments were rejected by Republican-controlled committees.

Now, at the same time, the actions of government agencies that we trust to defend us raise serious questions about their competency and compassion to protect this Nation. And I must talk about what they have done over in Homeland Security in regard to the Shirlington Limousine contract.

As you know, 2 years ago, they were given an unbid contract of $3.5 million to chauffeur around people who work for DHS in Washington, despite the fact that, I am certain, they have fleets of cars, as every other agency does, and how cheap it would have been for them to take a taxi. But that was not enough.

A year later, they awarded a $21 million contract to the same company, bid this time. They were not the low bidder, but they did get the contract. Now let me tell you that if the first responders and the officials up in my part of the country can get their hands on $21 million to fortify the borders, they would do it in a New York minute.

Shirlington, when it was given these contracts, was nearly bankrupt. It had recently been fired by a local university for poor performance, and its president is a convicted felon. No background checks of any kind were done by the Department of Homeland Security.

Now, the company is now involved in an ongoing Federal investigation, along with several unnamed Members of this body, which has so far revealed that it may have literally provided the vehicles by which an illegal influence peddling ring operated.

I have submitted a resolution of inquiry to the Homeland Security Committee which would compel DHS to turn over all documents related to the awarding of their contract to Shirlington. No hearing has been held; basically no questions have been raised.

After all, the American people have a right to know how a corrupt and dubious company received a huge contract with our Homeland Security money and who, if anyone, interceded on its behalf. It takes the wonderment of Alice in Wonderland believing six impossible things before breakfast to believe that someone in that agency did not grease the skids for that company.

But DHS has so far refused our requests for information. We do not even have a response. And the Republican Congress refused to force them to turn over that information, and I want to know why.

Nor is this the only way in which DHS, the supposed cure for the problems that permitted September 11 to take place, has yet to prove itself to be a valuable agency. Frankly, its value is very dubious.

My constituents in the northern United States have experienced such a reality first hand. In January 2008, Homeland Security and the State Department intend to introduce new forms of border identification for northern residents as part of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The plan itself is deeply flawed. It will result in a dramatic reduction in cross border travel and trade and one that will cost the national economies of the United States and Canada billions of dollars every year.

And at a recent meeting that we had with members of the Canadian parliament, they asked the question that is very pertinent: What does Canada do with the citizens of the United States who have gone to Canada and do not have a passport to allow themselves to come home?

Is the Canadian government expected to take all of these American citizens into custody and to hold them? On what grounds? And to what end? I suggested at the Rules Committee that maybe we could send the Shirlington Limousine up to Canada and bring them home.

But what is worse, it faces opposition, not just from outside the government but within it as well. Just yesterday, the DHS privacy office released a draft report stating that elements of the plan raised both security and privacy concerns.

The GAO will soon report that both DHS and State are nowhere near being able to implement the plan by their January 2008 deadline. In fact, what is really astonishing is there is not a dime in this bill concerning WHTI, anything for infrastructure, anything that they plan to spend money on, which says to me that DHS knows itself that they are not ever going to be able to do this.

When we step back and take all of these things together, we know what is occurring in Washington. Despite all of its pledges and promises, the Republican-led Congress has failed to make us safer. It has not spent the money needed to improve the vulnerable parts of our national security system, but wastes it on limousine service. Its own agencies have proven incapable of coordinating their activities or implementing new security plans. And the corruption of Congress has seeped into and affected some of those we count on to protect us, all under the nose of a House entirely uninterested in any kind of oversight.

Madam Speaker, the American people have had enough of these priorities of agencies that this government presides over. They know the difference between real security that the Democratic Party is offering and unfulfilled promises of the majority party. They deserve a leadership that shares their priorities, that will not break its own promises. They deserve a change.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is not that we want to spend more money. We really question the way money is spent, and we really believe that $21 million to drive people around town is an absurd expense for an agency that is responsible for our safety.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I do not think the American people are going to buy it anymore that Democrats are great spendthrifts and just want to throw more money. We would not do a contract for $21 million for a limousine to drive around Washington.

I think people remember that, 6 years ago, we had the largest surplus that this country has ever enjoyed that should have lasted us for 20 years. It lasted less than three, and now we have the largest deficit we have ever had.

I think people will see through that.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend the rule and allow the House to consider the Sabo chemical plant security provision that was left exposed to a point of order in the rule, and the Obey amendment to address the funding shortfalls in the bill.

Efforts to allow the full House to consider these two important initiatives were rejected in the Rules Committee yesterday by a straight party-line vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendments and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

The Sabo language would require the Secretary of Homeland Security within 6 months to issue regulations for the security of chemical facilities in the United States. This language was added to the bill during the Appropriations Committee markup, but was exposed to a point of order in the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, whether or not Members support this provision to increase security at vulnerable chemical facilities, we should, at the very least, have an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the provision and not have it stricken on a point of order.

The Obey amendment will increase funding by $3.5 billion to help address a number of the bill's seriously underfunded programs and the services that are vital to homeland security. It will provide for increased Border Patrol agents, increased immigration investigators, and increased capacity and detention facilities. It fully funds the Port Security Grant program at the level enacted by the House just 2 weeks ago. It provides funds for Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard to better protect our ports. And it restores cuts in programs that assist local first responders in disaster preparation. It also provides for substantial expansion of resources to support aviation explosive detection for air cargo and passengers and carry-on bags.

The Obey amendment does this and more without imposing any increase in our awful deficit. The entire cost of the amendment is offset by a slight reduction in the tax cut for those fortunate individuals in this Nation having annual incomes of over $1 million.

Unfortunately, the homeland security appropriations bill before us today is inadequately funded in a number of areas that are vitally important to our Nation's security. We are all aware that Federal dollars are limited; but when it comes to the safety and security of the American people, we have to find a way to fund those programs in ways that will protect our citizens. Democrats believe in keeping our promises. The Obey amendment will help us support these efforts and do so without adding to the debt.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out a ``no'' will not prevent us from considering the homeland security appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Sabo and Obey proposals. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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