Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Wayne Shumate, an all around outstanding Kentuckian. Wayne passed away on November 14, 2005, the day after his 71st birthday.

Known for his intelligence, strong work ethic, and the ability to bring out the absolute best in people, Wayne Shumate made it easy to remember him. He led a distinguished career in the textile industry, serving as director of Jockey International and then as chairman of both Blue Grass Industries and Kentucky Textiles.

Always one to enjoy a challenge, Wayne began raising blackberries at his Nicholas County farm in an effort to find a replacement crop for Kentucky's dwindling tobacco industry. Thanks to Wayne's hard work and business savvy, the blackberry venture took off and became incredibly successful. Today--twenty-years after Wayne planted his first Hull Thornless blackberries--WindStone Farm is nationally recognized and famous for its Blackberry Jam.

Never one to rest of his laurels, Wayne was affiliated with many different civic and nonprofit boards, which also speaks volumes about his personal character and reputation. Three different Governors appointed him to the Kentucky Harness Racing Commission and he served as President of the Association of Racing Commissioners International (RCI). Wayne also spent two terms on the Cincinnati/Cleveland 4th District Federal Reserve Board, chaired Governor Julian Carroll's Economic Development Commission, and was widely known and recognized in the cities of Carlisle and Paris, Kentucky for his thoughtful leadership.

Wayne was a loving father and loyal companion, and I want to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt condolences to his mother, Carrie Spivey Shumate, his wife, Kay George Shumate, his two children, Clifford Wayne Shumate Jr. and Sara Paige Shumate Short, his sister, Rose Carol Shumate, and the rest of his family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Wayne Shumate. While he will be sorely missed, I am confident his legacy--not to mention his famous smile--will continue to live on in the hearts and minds of his loving family and many friends.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 17, I was unavoidably detained in Kentucky and was not present for rollcall votes No. 521, 522 and 523. The votes were on approving the Journal, and House Resolutions 457 and 491. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all measures.

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, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the real question here is, if you are happy with the way the planning went to prepare for Katrina, vote for this motion to instruct conferees. But if you think that we can plan better for disasters in this country, including hurricanes like Katrina, then reject this motion and allow the Department, the government to bring together all of the agencies that might be involved in planning for a disaster into the same room. Not just FEMA. Bring the Coast Guard, bring the military, bring the border patrol, bring the Secret Service.

Bring all of the agencies that deal with disasters or have a part of that into the same place, the same directorate, if you will, in the Department of Homeland Security so that we can properly plan and bring the resources to bear of the government in a timely way, at the outset, by properly preparing. FEMA is a FEMA-centric organization. It stays within its boundary and does a good job basically in responding, but not planning, not preparedness.

The gentleman from Minnesota says early on in his statement, Katrina shined a bright spotlight on troubling gaps in our ability to deal with catastrophes. I could not agree more. That is why I think we need to allow the government to create a directorate for preparedness that is the broadest in its scope it can be, encompassing all of the agencies of the government, not just FEMA.

The gentleman from Minnesota also said in his opening remarks, people demand that we fix what is broken. I agree with that as well. Ironically, however, his motion to instruct conferees would prevent our capability of being able to fix what is broken. To fix what is broken, which is preparedness, we need to be able to build a much broader- scoped organization, looking just at preparedness for these disasters. A single preparedness directorate will be able to work not just with the Federal agencies but State and local governments as well to build a comprehensive preparedness strategy, focused not just on terrorist activities but certainly an all-hazards strategy.

Consolidating all preparedness functions will assist the Department in successfully deploying this strategy throughout all levels of government where it is needed the most.

The responsibility for preparedness exists in various agencies and levels of the government outside of FEMA. For example, the Coast Guard is not a part of FEMA. Do you want to prevent the Coast Guard from being able to help plan for rescuing people in case of a flood or disaster like Katrina?

I do not want to exclude the Coast Guard from that process. Do Members want to exclude the military and the National Guard from that process? This motion would keep things just as it is. I am not happy with things just as they are. Hurricane Katrina proved that it is not getting the job done.

Do Members want to exclude the Corps of Engineers? They are not a part of the FEMA, they are part of the Army. Do Members want to prevent the Coast Guard, the National Guard, the military and all other agencies from helping plan to prepare for these disasters? I want them included, not excluded. Creating a directorate in the Department whose sole focus is preparedness will bring together all of these agencies and build a preparedness capability in DHS that does not currently exist.

Also, keep in mind that FEMA will continue to be responsible for their portion of preparedness planning within this much-larger construct. They will continue to administer the Emergency Management Institute, which serves as the national focal point for the development and delivery of emergency management training and enhances the capabilities of Federal, State and local governments in order to minimize the impact of disasters. They will still be involved, deeply, in preparedness planning. But I think we need to add these other agencies into the mix so we know from the outset, from the git-go who is going to do what, when, where and why. What is wrong with that?

The bottom line is that this reorganization will allow for better coordination among the various preparedness components within the much larger Department of Homeland Security and encourage learning and building off of each other. If FEMA were to be solely responsible for preparedness, the result will be a FEMA-centric approach, just within the small world of FEMA. DHS must develop a broader, all-hazards focus when it comes to preparedness, one that includes natural disasters and terrorist incidents.

We know that somewhere in response to Hurricane Katrina, the system broke. To vote for this motion will perpetuate the status quo. If Members like things just as they are, then vote for the Sabo motion. But if Members want a much broader context of preparing for these disasters with all of the agencies of the government that could be involved in disaster relief and planning, if Members want all of them involved, then reject this motion and let the Department reorganize the preparedness part of getting ready for these terrible storms using all of the assets of the government, not just a small part.

I urge Members to reject this motion and to allow the conferees to go about the business of conferring with the other body and bringing back a bill responsibly to this body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very hard-working member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal to create within the Department a directorate dealing just with preparedness and bringing into that agency all of the other agencies of the government, Federal, State, and local, to help plan so that we will not have another Katrina episode makes altogether good sense. This was not developed overnight, the idea. In fact, it has been studied by the Secretary and the Department for many months.

I want to quote briefly from a letter that I received just this morning from the Department, from Secretary Chertoff, which says as follows: ``Our proposal was formed after intensive consultations with preparedness professionals, first responders, law enforcement officials, the former leadership of'' the Department, ``and State and local stakeholders.'' All of these people were involved in the construction of this idea of creating a massive government-wide directorate for preparedness planning.

``Our objective is to create a stronger capability to do preparedness planning across the full spectrum of all hazards, both natural disasters and terrorist attacks.''

Continuing to read: ``Critically, no structural changes were made to FEMA prior to Hurricane Katrina.'' Katrina was under the old scheme. ``Going forward, our plan will significantly strengthen the planning and preparedness actions of FEMA and the entire Department by ensuring that a dedicated team will focus on these actions on a full-time, urgent basis. Our preparedness directorate,'' the Secretary says, ``will integrate and leverage the capabilities of FEMA with those of Coast Guard; TSA,'' Transportation Security Administration; the customs agents, both on the border and internal, ``and Secret Service,'' among others.

``FEMA is and should be a surge organization.'' We have forgotten that.

FEMA develops with the surges of the moment. ``When incidents occur, every asset of the organization and its entire leadership team surges into the incident. ``Our proposal,'' the Secretary says, ``for a preparedness organization supports FEMA's capacity to surge while maintaining a systematic planning and exercise regime in support of FEMA's mission and that of other DHS components. The directorate will aggressively support FEMA's training and exercising needs.''

Continuing to read from the Secretary's letter: ``It aligns our grant-making programs and our crucial training and exercising work in support of the Department's all-hazards mission. The directorate will include increased focus on issues broader than FEMA, including infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, and a new chief medical officer.'' Those are not considered today in the present FEMA. We have got to take a look at the broader picture. So those are the comments of the Secretary.

Now, who supports the Secretary in bringing a broader perspective to preparedness planning? Groups like the International Association of Fire Chiefs. If there is a first responder organization that typifies what they do, it is the fire departments and the fire chiefs, the people who know best about preparing for disasters. They say this is a critical change that is necessary, and I am quoting from their letter to that effect: ``This preparedness directorate must be a new function and must be separate and distinct from operational functions, although it must coordinate with those operational functions.''

Quoting further from the International Association of Fire Chiefs: ``Currently, the U.S. Fire Administration is located within the Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate. Unfortunately, the preparedness functions of the USFA are diminished because EP&R is frequently focused on the operational response to disasters.'' That makes sense.

They go on to say: ``It is critical that fire chiefs or other senior fire service leaders be included in this directorate, along with other State, local, and tribal first responders, so that they may provide essential perspective in the creation of policy for DHS and not only in the review or enactment of policy.'' This puts the fire chiefs in the middle of the planning process, not at the other end. They are not being told what to do. They are being asked what to do with this proposal.

If Members vote for the Sabo motion, they are saying to the fire chiefs, We do not care about you. We will tell you what to do. We do not want you to tell us how we should do it before we do it.

We want to bring them into the planning process, not tell them what to do at the end of the process.

In bringing about this directorate, the Department of the Secretary over months went out and talked to all sorts of people and organizations. I will give some examples, and I have got three pages here of the listing of some of the people they have talked to.

Lee Baca, the Sheriff of L.A. County; Matt Bettenhausen, director of the California Office of Homeland Security; Roger Vanderpool, director, Arizona Department of Public Safety; Art Faulkner, liaison for assistant director for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Alabama Department of Homeland Security; Jim Timmony, police chief, City of Miami; Mike Sherberger, director of the Office of Homeland Security, Georgia; Illinois, Jonathan Schachter, City of Chicago; Art Cleaves, director of Maine Emergency Management; John Cohen, Massachusetts Homeland Security;

Also Colonel Tom Robbins, Massachusetts State Police; Sid Casperson, the Director of the New Jersey Office of Counterterrorism; Jim McMahon, Director of New York State Office of Homeland Security; Brian Beatty, Secretary of Public Safety in North Carolina; Doug Friez in North Dakota; Ken Morckel, Director of Public Safety for Ohio; people from Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia; the Federal Order of Police; the International Associations of Chiefs of Police; and I could go on.

So, here is a list, a brief list, of some of the people contacted by the Department as they came up with this idea to consolidate preparedness planning in a single place, encompassing all of the agencies of the Federal, State and local governments, people like the fire chiefs and chiefs of police.

From the Major Cities Chiefs Association, a letter saying ``law enforcement across the Nation supports the President's position that the best way to prepare for a terrorist attack is to stop it from happening. We feel that the Department should unify the components that share this common mission. At present, the Prevention and Protection Grants plans and intelligence are each in separate agencies. Long overdue, the Nation would be well served by DHS directorate committed solely to protecting the American people. For the first time, the chiefs of police say, ``local law enforcement could work with a single DHS directorate focused on our common goal to protect the American people from another terrorist attack.''

Chiefs of police, fire chiefs, first responders, State and local directors of homeland security all say the same thing: We have got to consolidate and bring in one place the preparedness planning practice within Homeland.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when Secretary Chertoff became the Secretary of the new Department, he declared sort of a moratorium; and he went off with his staff, and they began to discuss and think and plan about how to improve the Department's capability to respond and prevent attacks either by nature or by man; homeland security.

And one of the biggest things they found was that in the different Departments of the government, there were agencies that had something to do with responding to an emergency and being prepared for that, but separate and apart from each other.

For example, the Coast Guard had their own preparedness group that

plans what they should do in an emergency. Of course, States have their own plans, as they should. And local officials, mayors and the like, have their own plans for response and preparedness. The military has obviously planned for disasters. They have been prepared. And, of course, the National Guard, the same way. The Corps of Engineers have their own unit that deals with preparedness for disasters, and we could go on. All across this government there are agencies within all of these, or many of these Departments that are preparing for disasters.

The Secretary said we need an agency within Homeland Security where all of these groups can come together under one roof and participate and plan as one unit, not just the agencies of the Federal Government, but States and localities as well. He went out, his people went out and they talked to hundreds, literally hundreds of directors of State homeland security groups, of fire chiefs and police and the first responders all over the country, and there came back from all of those people the unanimous idea: we need a single place where we can all go, and know to go, both to plan and to inquire.

So that now, in this plan that the Secretary has, the police and the firemen and the State emergency directors, as well as the Federal agencies, all of them from the Coast Guard to the Secret Service, all can come together in one place and do nothing but planning. They are not concerned about doing the operational part of responding to an emergency, that is FEMA and the various agencies. But for the planning purposes, they want to be together.

So the Secretary says, okay, that is the way it shall be. And in his reorganization plan, he agreed with all of the police chiefs and the fire chiefs, the State planning directors, the emergency planners in each State, the homeland security people in the States, and mayors, he agreed with them and gave them what they wanted: a single place.

Let us not have another Katrina. Let us work together so that we each know what we are supposed to do in the event that a disaster occurs.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to instruct conferees. Let these experts do their work. I am no expert on how to respond to a fire or a disaster. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) may know more than I, but I doubt he is an expert either. We have experts who do nothing but this. Let us put the experts in charge, and let them tell us what we need to do, and let us then follow along and do what has to be done to save lives.

The bottom line: if you are happy with the way FEMA planned for Katrina, vote Sabo. If you think we can improve and we can do better in planning for the next disaster, reject Sabo. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time and, more importantly, for the work that he has been doing these past several days trying to come to the aid of colleagues in the South.

One year ago, this Congress responded to an unprecedented event, four hurricanes striking a State within 2 months in Florida. Little did we know that a year later this Nation would be tested beyond what we saw in Florida. Not quite 2 weeks ago now, we saw the fury and destruction that Mother Nature can unleash; and we all watched as not just homes and communities were destroyed but entire cities.

The images on television were horrific. I do not know a single heart in America that is not breaking as we watch hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens become victims to the worst natural disaster in the Nation's history.

There has been much debate, finger-pointing in the press about who is to blame for problems with relief efforts, about who allowed such a human disaster to happen. This is an important question and one to which we must find answers, but at the appropriate time. Right now, it is time to finish the job of rescuing human beings from harm's way, to comfort those that have lost all of their possessions, and to help them find a sense of comfort and normalcy.

This bill will provide the beginnings to do just that. We do not know yet what the total disaster costs will be, but we want to assure the victims and the Nation that we will do everything in our power to help them recover.

Just an idea, Mr. Speaker, in World War I we had a thing called Liberty Bonds. I think it is time we thought about perhaps having Katrina Bonds. A lot of people are wanting to help across the Nation. This would be a way for every individual, if they chose, to find a way to help the victims of this great, horrible disaster. So I recommend that we think of that, establishment of K savings bonds.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Shirley Elliott, an exceptional Kentuckian. Elliott, a 72-year-old deputy sheriff, has served and protected the people of Knox County with distinction for 35 years. A man this committed to the safety and well being of his community deserves our recognition.

Like many eastern Kentucky teenagers from his generation, Elliott was prepared to work in the dark coal mines of Appalachia. He began helping his father haul coal out of the mines at the age of 15. In 1970, while he worked at a coal tipple in Knox County, he received an offer from then-Sheriff Jim Matt Mooneyham to become deputy sheriff. After a short time on duty, Elliott knew he had found his lifelong calling.

Thirty-five years later, Elliott is a pillar of the community that he serves and protects. The community and law enforcement officers in Knox County hold him in high regard, and he has earned a reputation as a mediator. Current Sheriff John Pickard recently told a Kentucky paper, ``He's probably the best I've ever seen at calming a dangerous situation.'' Elliott says his strategy involves simply giving people time and space to cool off. During 35 years of service, he has never had to fire his .44-caliber Smith & Wesson during a potentially dangerous encounter.

Deputy Sheriff Elliott no longer works the night shift, which leaves more time for him to work in his garden and spend time with his wife Nikki and their children and grandchildren. He has considered retirement, but, for now, continues to proudly wear his badge.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank Deputy Sheriff Shirley Elliott for his sacrifice and service on behalf of the people of Knox County, Kentucky. His dedication and integrity are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Shirley Elliott, an exceptional Kentuckian. Elliott, a 72-year-old deputy sheriff, has served and protected the people of Knox County with distinction for 35 years. A man this committed to the safety and well being of his community deserves our recognition.

Like many eastern Kentucky teenagers from his generation, Elliott was prepared to work in the dark coal mines of Appalachia. He began helping his father haul coal out of the mines at the age of 15. In 1970, while he worked at a coal tipple in Knox County, he received an offer from then-Sheriff Jim Matt Mooneyham to become deputy sheriff. After a short time on duty, Elliott knew he had found his lifelong calling.

Thirty-five years later, Elliott is a pillar of the community that he serves and protects. The community and law enforcement officers in Knox County hold him in high regard, and he has earned a reputation as a mediator. Current Sheriff John Pickard recently told a Kentucky paper, ``He's probably the best I've ever seen at calming a dangerous situation.'' Elliott says his strategy involves simply giving people time and space to cool off. During 35 years of service, he has never had to fire his .44-caliber Smith & Wesson during a potentially dangerous encounter.

Deputy Sheriff Elliott no longer works the night shift, which leaves more time for him to work in his garden and spend time with his wife Nikki and their children and grandchildren. He has considered retirement, but, for now, continues to proudly wear his badge.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank Deputy Sheriff Shirley Elliott for his sacrifice and service on behalf of the people of Knox County, Kentucky. His dedication and integrity are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman for a great bill and especially this provision of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the numbers simply do not lie. The current model for Amtrak is simply unsustainable. This issue has perennially haunted this subcommittee. Amtrak refuses to take a good hard look at the facts, instead relying on an annual congressional bail out. They would rather lobby Congress than reform the system.

When I chaired this subcommittee, we included a series of reporting requirements and business practice modifications for Amtrak so the Congress and the American taxpayers would know the financial stakes involved.

These reporting requirements included developing a quarterly grant process, giving the Secretary of Transportation direct oversight into Amtrak decisions, separating out operating and capital expenses, and also requiring monthly financial reports and zero-based budgeting. And we insisted that Amtrak employ generally accepted accounting principles in order to control spending and eliminate waste.

These modifications have been carried forth and expanded in the last four appropriations bills, including this one. And what did we discover with those procedures? Amtrak's financial records reveal that for every $1 Amtrak earns in food and beverage revenue, it spends about $2, resulting in a $245 million loss between the years 2002 and 2004.

Amtrak's on-time performance fell 74 percent in 2003, 71 percent in 2004. Service is not getting better. It is getting worse.

Amtrak's current 2005 revenue projection will be $95 million short of its original estimate.

For the last 6 years, the average annual cash losses have exceeded $600 million.

Most notably, they are carrying an estimated $5 billion in what they need to repair and improve safety on the railroad.

The amendment that is before us does not address any of these problems; $900 million, or 75 percent of these moneys, in this amendment would restore operating expenses and debt service on $4.6 billion in accrued debt. No reform, no tough cost-cutting decisions, no recognition of the facts. This amendment simply kicks tough decisions down the track.

For too long, Amtrak has deferred critical maintenance on a system it simply cannot maintain. With this amendment, we simply increase the cost and increase the likelihood of a serious system failure.

The plan put forth by the chairman is a fair and equitable plan to limit the Federal contribution to routes that are simply imprudent. By capping the per-passenger subsidy at $30, Amtrak is given clear prioritization on its spending and forced to address supply-and-demand realities.

We simply cannot keep going on sending empty trains clear across the country with no riders. I would point out that on one of the crosscountry trains we are subsidizing every passenger by $420 per person. I can buy you a first class, round-trip ticket to California for less on an airline. How can we sustain such a thing?

Cut out these wasteful, expensive, riderless trains and save Amtrak for the places where people want to ride the trains, the northeast, the Midwest, the West Coast. It makes no sense to run these empty trains across the country with nobody on them. Save that money. Put it into the northeast corridor. Put it into the Chicago area. Put it into the California trains and the West Coast trains, and let us reform Amtrak.

I urge the defeat of this amendment.

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 H.R. 2360 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I am pleased to be here today to present the fiscal 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.

The first chapter for the Department of Homeland Security has been written. Progress has been made, and our country is safer today than it was before September 11. In 2 years the Department has developed and deployed new technologies to inspect cargo at our seaports and detect hazards in our environment. US-VISIT has been put in place at all international airports and seaports; a one-stop shop for first responders has been created; more than 90,000 national assets have been catalogued in a national infrastructure database; and a communications system with State and local governments is in place.

These are important accomplishments, but they are not enough. There is a great deal of work to be done, and it is time to write the next chapter.

The bill before us today provides $30.8 billion in discretionary funds for the upcoming fiscal year, $1.4 billion above the current year and $1.3 billion above the amounts requested by the President. There are some tough choices in here, but they have been made after a careful review of how the Department is functioning, which programs work, and which ones, quite frankly, are broken.

Nearly 2 years ago, when the Department was first created and came before the Committee on Appropriations seeking funds, I made it clear that homeland security requires the active engagement of all Americans and all branches of government; that we are all stakeholders and must be treated as such. I also advised that the Committee on Appropriations would be a partner as the Department sought to secure our homeland, that we would not be casual bystanders willing to sign a blank check. I have consistently

and repeatedly told the Department that we would require accountability and cooperation, that we would expect them to establish and meet specific milestones, that we would watch and measure their progress. We have done that, exactly that. And, frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed.

I have come to the conclusion that there are two fundamental challenges within this Department. First, DHS has been slow to build its internal capabilities. The information technology infrastructure has not been integrated. There is no system in place to develop, certify, and transfer homeland security technologies. A financial management system that tracks where the money goes does not exist, and there is only a limited capacity to put first responder funds out on the street based on standards and minimum levels of preparedness.

Second, the Department has not been successful at revising missions and assets of legacy organizations in a way that reflects the post-9/11 homeland security environment. All too many examples come to mind: the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Protection, and Transportation Security. In too many cases it is just business as usual. Missions and threats have changed, but the Department has not. This is unacceptable. The ``business as usual'' mentality has to go.

The bill before us is anything but business as usual. The Department has been a reluctant partner and has ignored requests for information and direction to move expeditiously in the implementation of important national policies and goals.

This became all too obvious this year when the Department ignored Congressional requests for comprehensive information on the Coast Guard's important Deepwater program. The Department will find that that lack of information has cost them. Absent a revised baseline that reflects post-9/11 mission requirements for the Coast Guard, Deepwater is being funded at pre-9/11 levels, $500 million. That is $466 million below the request. It is a simple equation, Mr. Chairman: No information equals no money.

Throughout this bill, we will see this equation applied. There are more than $485 million in cuts because the Congress did not get the information we needed to make informed decisions about programs and operations. There is also more than $310 million in fenced funding, until the Department performs certain actions, including implementation of new air cargo screening methods and standards, an immigration and border security enforcement strategy, and a plan to deploy explosive detection technologies to our Nation's airports.

Within this bill, first responders are funded at the President's requested level of $3.6 billion. I would like to point out that there continues to be problems at the local, State, and Federal levels in terms of getting money actually out to first responders. We have recently learned, Mr. Chairman, that only 30 percent of the funds that we have appropriated since 2002, have been spent. Including the 2005 grant money, there is $6.8 billion in the grant pipeline.

Mr. Chairman, that is unacceptable.

The bill does not propose any changes to the current formula as to how those monies are dealt out, but it does recognize that legislation which passed this Chamber last week is moving through the process. The appropriations bill will allow 2006 funding to go out based on any formula change that may be signed into law. The bill also presumes that if new formulas do not go into effect, the Department would maintain the minimum allocation for States of .75 percent. The balance of that fund, though, would go out based on risk, threat, and need; not, as it has in the past, based solely on population. That is a fundamental change in the way first responder monies would go out.

The bill also includes a significant increase for border security and immigration enforcement. A total of $1.2 billion is added for the Customs and Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement branches. That funding is on top of the $550 million that was provided in the emergency supplemental just signed. Between that supplemental and this bill, we will be providing the Department with the resources to hire an additional 1,500 border patrol agents and 568 ICE officers throughout the country. Funds are also available to add some 3,870 detention beds, which would be roughly a 20 percent increase over current levels. Also, funds are available for new radiation portal monitors and air assets.

These funds, though, Mr. Chairman, would come with strings attached. Our immigration enforcement strategy needs an overhaul. Despite more than tripling spending on border security and immigration enforcement in the last 10 years, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has more than doubled, an unbelievable 11 million estimated illegal aliens in the country; and that number is growing by a half a million a year, by conservative estimates.

And of that total, there are more than 465,000 absconders, people who have been caught, brought to court, released on their own recognizance to report at a later date, which they fail to do. And of those, 80,000 of them have criminal records. Those numbers, Mr. Chairman, will only get worse unless we act.

Immigration enforcement is one of the most critical components of homeland security, yet the Department's current strategy has changed little since the days of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service. In order to inspire change, the bill includes language requiring the Secretary to submit an immigration enforcement strategy to reduce the number of undocumented aliens by 10 percent per year. The bill withholds $20 million of the Secretary's office funds until we receive that strategy.

Finally, for transportation security, the bill includes $6.4 billion, partially offset by fees, which is an increase of $344 million above the current year. The bill includes several provisions that address years of frustration in dealing with the Transportation Security Administration. For too long, TSA and others have ignored congressional direction regarding general aviation at Reagan National Airport. A legislative provision is included, after these 3 or 4 years of discussions, requiring the Secretary to open Reagan National Airport to general aviation within 90 days of enactment of this act.

The committee also has repeatedly asked for a plan as to how TSA would be installing the explosive detection systems, the so-called x- ray machines, at our airports. Again, TSA has ignored the Congress. In addition to providing $495 million for the purchase and installation of these x-ray machines, the committee fences $50 million of the administrator's funds until an installation plan is provided to the Congress.

Finally, the bill provides $100 million for cargo security in passenger planes. TSA has ignored congressional directions to triple the screening of air cargo on passenger aircraft. As a result, the committee reduces the appropriation for TSA headquarters by $100,000 for each day that the tripling of air cargo is not implemented. The bill also fences another $10 million until new cargo screening standards and protocols are implemented.

These next few years, Mr. Chairman, will define the Department's place in history. This bill may be tough, and I admit that it is, but I hope it is a wakeup call. It is time to take strong action to ensure that the Department's place in history and our safety will be one of success and leadership in securing our homeland and not one of government bureaucracy and failed opportunities. It is now time for action.

I appreciate that the bill includes several tough provisions. I am aware that the new Secretary is in the process of completing what he calls a second-stage review of the Department's programs and operations. I am pleased about that. While I have great respect and confidence in the Department's new leadership, and we look forward to receiving any recommendations the Secretary may have to move the Department forward, we cannot ignore the fundamental problems that we have been experiencing with this Department since its creation. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17MY05.015

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. Chairman, I submit the following exchange of letters for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2005.

Hon. Bill Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas. Thank you for your letter regarding

H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations

Act for fiscal year 2006. As you have noted, the bill is

scheduled for floor consideration on Tuesday, May 17, 2005. I

appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage of this

legislation although it contains a provision involving

overtime pay that falls within your Committee's jurisdiction.

I appreciate your decision to forgo further action on the

bill and acknowledge that it will not prejudice the Committee

on Ways and Means with respect to its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

Our committees have worked closely together on this

important initiative, and I am very pleased we are continuing

that cooperation. I appreciate your helping us to move this

legislation quickly to the floor. Finally, I will include in

the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on

this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

We look forward to working with you in the future.

Best regards,

Harold Rogers,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished and very able chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time as well, and I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of money in this section of the bill. I think we have put all the money we can into that section, and it is ample.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I rise reluctantly in opposition to the gentleman's amendment that would earmark $6 million for the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement and the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator out of funds provided for the Office of the Secretary and executive management.

Mr. Chairman, the Department currently has eight people working on counternarcotics issues. In the past 2 years, we funded $1.86 million for that activity. That is almost half the funding provided for the Chief of Staff of the Department, where the counternarcotics staff are located. A $6 million earmark for counternarcotics would have the effect of zeroing out all funding for all other activities funded within the Chief of Staff's office, including the development of budget and information technology policies for the secretary.

In fact, this amendment would require additional reductions in the Chief of Staff's office to fund this work. These reductions would mean that the Secretary would hire fewer security staff to focus on classified and security-sensitive issues within the Department, reduce support for the privacy office, or perhaps eliminate most of the newly proposed Office of Policy and also prohibit the hiring of new staff requested in the 2006 budget.

There is no real clear justification why this office should basically triple in one fiscal year from less than $2 million to $6 million, or what the appropriate size of the office should be, particularly when they have not even filled all the funded positions they have.

While I support the counterdrug mission of the Department, and in fact wish that the Chief Counternarcotics Officer would take a more prominent role in resolving longstanding issues of interagency coordination of drug interdiction, we cannot appropriate funds without knowing what those funds will be paying for. We just do not write blank checks in this subcommittee. I respect the gentleman's amendment and his intent.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Reclaiming my time, that is correct, and this is where the staff is now located. So it would have to come out of the Chief of Staff's operating budget.

Perhaps the gentleman can withdraw the amendment and we will have a chance to work on it further.

I will be happy to work with the gentleman. He has been a very diligent Member of this body, and I appreciate the information he is providing to us now. We will work with the gentleman to try to get at the problem he describes here.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to state a point of order and in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal will likely cause an overage on outlays, and so 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.

Mr. Chairman, I will read it again to the gentlewoman.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I really appreciate the action of the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Coast Guard authorization committee. I really appreciate the gentleman's amendment and the comments that have been made. I think we are all in agreement. There is nothing that hurt me more in this bill than when we were forced to cut back the Deepwater monies until we could get the report of the Coast Guard about what the 20-year plans were.

I am a big supporter of Deepwater. In fact, when I was chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee is when we first funded Deepwater. The gentleman from Minnesota and I served on that subcommittee as well. It is a wonderful program.

But then came 9/11. When 9/11 happened, the mission of the Coast Guard dramatically changed and they never really amended the Deepwater program in view of that very alarming new mission that they became charged with. And then we have continued to fund them for the last 2 years just based on their promise that they would get us the revised plan--a rebaselining. And then as time passed and we began to notice with the help of the gentleman from New Jersey's subcommittee that more and more of the Deepwater monies intended for new equipment was being used to maintain the old equipment, increasingly eating into the Deepwater monies. We felt we had no choice but to try to force the issue.

We have bent over backwards, 15 different ways, with the Coast Guard and with the Department to try to get them to tell us the new 20-year plan, the rebaselined Deepwater, so that we all know where we are going and we know what we are buying.

This subcommittee is not going to be a blank check for anybody. We insist on knowing what the program is. I think that is our duty. As soon as the Coast Guard can get us the 20-year Deepwater spending plan, I think the problem will disappear but not until. The old equation, lack of information means lack of money, applies to the Coast Guard as it does to my personal account.

I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's work and his attitude in the subcommittee. He is a great leader of that subcommittee and has done a wonderful job. We have enjoyed working with him. He is easy to work with. He is very firm in his convictions, but he understands what has to be done here.

I hope that this painful period of time will pass. It is up to the Coast Guard and the Department and perhaps, most importantly, the Office of Management and Budget to all finally agree and let us get on with it. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

The gentleman is exactly correct. In fact, in the 2002 period of time we were requesting the new baseline. We did that in 2003. And then in the 2005 bill finally, we wrote it into the law that said you shall furnish the rebaselining on a such and so date. That time has long past gone. We still do not have it. What else can we do? I am open to all ideas, but I think the only weapon we have left is withholding funds.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, in this bill we double the amount of money that is in the 2005. We double it, $40 million more than they had in 2005, and it is 50 percent more than what the President requested. I mean we are shoveling money at this office. To shovel more money at them would be, I think, wasteful, to say the very least.

Number two, this proposal would cut the Office of the Secretary. We are already doing a lot of that in this bill, and to cut them any more I think would be counterproductive. That Office of the Secretary is $133 million plus. This cut would result in a 15 percent reduction from that figure. The office is largely salaries and expenses, and cuts will result in fewer people attempting to meet an increasing workload. Fewer people means the Department will take even more time to respond to our Congressional inquiries.

We have been critical of that office, but it is this office that will ultimately make the changes needed to make this Department work. They are working on the new Secretary's second-stage review even as we speak. It is only now that the office has been fully staffed up. Any cuts would directly affect these positions.

In 2006 we recommended about 90 new positions to address critical needs in the Secretary's Office. These cuts that the gentlewoman proposes would result in reductions in security personnel responsible for classified material. It would reduce the newly expanded privacy office, and it would reduce the newly created policy office, a function that should help eliminate some of the stovepiped functions that we complain about in the Department.

So I would urge Members to reject the amendment. We have already doubled the amount of money in that account in this bill, and it would slash the Office of the Secretary at a very critical time.

I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Texas is correct. The Department has failed to take corrective action, and that is why this act will withhold $50 million in funding until the Department submits a detention and removal plan that addresses these issues in a more comprehensive manner. Already this year, the border patrol has apprehended over 75,000 illegals, Other Than Mexicans, more than twice the number of apprehensions compared to this same time last year; and we still have 5 months to go.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman first described to me the ``catch-and-release'' policy and how it has affected the border communities, I was surprised to learn that the Department had not made full use of its authority. I understand that doing so will not only allow the Department to remove OTMs two to three times faster than traditional methods while permitting legitimate asylum claims, but would cut detention costs for such individuals by more than 50 percent.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman. I think this is an excellent amendment. I am delighted that the gentlewoman has been able to ferret this out and bring it to the attention of all of us, and I want to say what a great job the gentlewoman has done and that I am going to vote for the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I opposed a similar amendment at the full committee level, but that was due largely to the use of IAIP funds to offset this amount. That would have stopped all construction and renovation of that growing directorate.

We have been working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, on this particular matter. We found a more suitable offset. We have reduced other first responder grant programs in this bill because of poor guidance and large

unspent balances. However, these grants do go directly to the fire departments. There is no choke point issue involved with these funds, and so I enthusiastically support the amendment on the floor and urge its passage.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts to work with our subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations, and I regret that the process of coordination did not go more smoothly.

I should acknowledge that the gentleman has indeed only sought to expose to points of order provisions or conditions that are genuinely authorization provisions, not all provisions against which a point of order would lie. Since the exposed provisions and conditions are, in fact, authorizing provisions, I want to assure the gentleman that in the conference negotiations on such provisions, I will follow the will of the authorizing committee in advancing the House position; and the conference report will, to the greatest extent possible, follow the will of the authorizing committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I fully sympathize with the concerns the gentleman from New Jersey has brought up, and the other gentleman has, about the issue of safety at chemical plants. We have 77,000 of them in the country and 17,000 of those deal with hazardous materials. So it is a big exposure that we have.

However, I have to respectfully urge the defeat of this amendment for two or three reasons. One, we have included $50 million in the bill just for critical infrastructure protection, including chemical plants, already. I know the gentleman will be pleased to hear that we do have that amount of money in there: the amount he is requesting is already in the bill.

Number two, we put in some very strong report language directing the Department to continue and complete the vulnerability assessments of all critical chemical facilities in the country. We have already reduced the State and Urban Area grant programs in this bill because of poor guidance, but mainly because they have still got $6.8 billion that we have appropriated since 2002 in the pipeline. They have only spent 30 percent of all we have appropriated. They have $6.8 billion left in the Office of Domestic Policy, which makes these grants. So there is plenty of money there. There is no point of putting more, until they draw down on what they already have.

Number three, I have a problem with where the gentleman is taking the money from. We have already hit the Under Secretary for Management's Office big time in this bill already. We have taken $26 million today, and this is the place where the important work of the Department needs to take place. If you take this $50 million from the Under Secretary of Management, it could only come from one place without impacting personnel; that is to say, lay off people, and that is the Human Resource System of the Department.

A $50 million reduction in that system would halt implementation of that human resource system program in its tracks. We would be unable to fund the ``pay pool,'' which would prevent the initial conversion of employees from the General Schedule to the new market-based pay bands and the pay-for-performance programs.

We would also be unable to provide competent program management and evaluation. It would delay the establishment of the Department's Labor Relations Board, as required by the final regulations. We would not be able to access knowledgeable outside experts that understand industry best practices in compensation design sets.

We would be unable to fund the training of managers, supervisors, and employees, and that lack of training would also have profound impacts on the credibility of the program with the employee base and their representatives.

So, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment, sympathizing with the gentleman's sentiments. But I think we have plenty of money there now, and I do not want to see us hurt the human resource system that is being put in place even as we speak. So I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is absolutely correct. There is a definite problem with our system that we hope to correct.

The bill before us provides $690 million, $90 million more than DHS asked, for an additional 1,920 detention bed spaces; and that combined with what we provided in the supplemental appropriations bill last week will add a total of 3,870 new beds over the current level. In addition, the bill provides $43 million for alternatives to detention, tripling last year's level and $10 million more than DHS requested. That will go further to attack the problem of the so-called OTMs who abuse our immigration policies and leave a gaping hole in the integrity of the borders.

I am convinced that the so-called catch-and-release practice signals that our current system is in need of significant reform. This bill is intended to make an effort in that respect.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree that the program should focus on both the traditional and homeland security missions of the Coast Guard.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I recognize the gentleman's concerns. We will work with him on this subject if the authorization bill retains R&D funding within the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing up this important subject. The gentleman makes an extremely important point, and that is we have two borders, the southwest and the Canadian border.

Over the years, I have to agree, we have neglected the northern border. So I join the gentleman in his sentiments that we find the monies, or be sure that the monies we have appropriated are spent on both borders. I thank the gentleman for bringing up that very important point.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman brings up a good point, and I think the gentleman would agree that since 9/11 we have spent most of the Transportation Security money on air flight and we have neglected, I think, rail security and port security and bus security and some of the others, trucking. However, I will be happy to work with him so that we do have moneys that are designated for these particular purposes, so that the Department does not have the capability of spending it all in one place. I think it is important that we do have, if we can get it through the authorization process, kitties destined just for rail, just for ports, just for trucks, buses, and the like.

Does the gentleman agree?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is right on track and I think we can agree with it.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it will be my pleasure to work with the gentleman and delegation on this project.

In fact, I remember not long ago, perhaps last year, helicoptering along that fence and then getting to the gap where there is no fence and seeing the results of that. So I will be happy to work with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to work with the gentleman and all of our colleagues toward that goal.

In fact, between the supplemental bill that passed last week and this bill that is on the floor, if it is successful, we will have added some 1,500 new agents between now and next year. So we are getting closer to his goal.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is a priority of mine. I am delighted to hear the gentlemen who are standing with me here today all agree on this topic.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman from Virginia yields back, let me say that the

gentleman has brought forth a very important matter, and it is a matter that he, as chairman of his authorizing committee, has worked with us and our staff over the last several weeks very admirably, and I appreciate the willingness of the chairman to work with us in this, and we were happy to work with him.

So I am prepared to accept the amendment, with the congratulations to the chairman, and thanks for his great work in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, for his valued work in this and many, many areas. We agree on 99 percent of the things that we work on. This is one of them. That is the opening of Reagan Airport to limited general aviation aircraft, as you and I both have for the last 3 years been talking with the Department and other agencies downtown about the need to reopen that airport, at least on a limited basis to general aviation aircraft, and they keep promising a plan, a plan, a plan, and it has been 3 years. And, you know, we won World War II in 4 years, and we can't even think about reopening an airport here in these 3 years.

So it is time to do something, and so in our bill, Mr. Chairman, we direct the Department to bring a plan forward and reopen that airport in 90 days after enactment of this act. And I know that is authorizing language. But I appreciate the gentleman who has jurisdiction over this issue letting us do this at this point in time, because I think he and I share the same view.

We may not be able to pass an authorization bill during the year, so this is sort of a backup procedure. And if you pass an authorization bill dealing with the subject, we will happily stand back and take second fiddle.

I think probably what the gentleman and myself have been talking about is a plan that reopens that airport at least to charter aircraft who would undergo the same security rigmarole that commercial airliners do today: Background check of the crew and passengers, background check of the owner of the plane, searching passengers' baggage as we do commercial passengers, the same rigmarole that we go on through on commercial passengers today on commercial craft.

Is that the gentleman's understanding?

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

Mr. Chairman, we have 50,000 employees in the Transportation Security Administration, and they make it safe to fly on airlines. The United States Government is paying the bill.

We have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of x-ray machines that we have put in every airport in the country to be sure that the people flying the airlines are safe. Uncle Sam is paying the bill.

I could go on. The airlines requested that we have marshals on board airplanes so they can say it is safe to their customers for flying on airlines. Uncle Sam pays the bill.

The law says that if we put these marshals on airplanes that the airline will pay their fare or not charge the fare. It does not cost the government anything to do it because it is a service that we are providing. And who pays the salaries of the marshals? Uncle Sam.

Now, they come and say, oh, but you have got to pay a first-class fee for this air marshal, protecting your plane, to fly on your plane? Give me a break.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

This amendment unnecessarily limits ICE's ability to efficiently manage the limited detention bed space that it has. The fluid nature of enforcement actions by ICE and changing migration patterns around the country mean that demands for detention space across the country changes from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year.

This bill stresses efficiency and maximizing our limited resources. This amendment would prevent ICE from closing inefficient or unneeded facilities.

This bill already requires a report from the Department on its detention management strategy; and until we see the result of that report, I think this amendment is premature.

We do not like to handcuff an agency without having all of the relevant information on the issue; but I would hate to see us say to ICE, you cannot close any facility ever because it changes the migration patterns of illegal immigration changes from day to day.

So I would urge that we defeat the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has brought up a very important point, and I would be delighted to work with the gentleman. He is a valued member of our committee and, on top of that, he is a very hard worker. So I would be happy to work with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, if this is the REAL ID with tax offset amendment, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because its proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part ``an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

This amendment changes the application of existing law, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided between the proponents and myself, the opponent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, no one knows at this point in time what this is going to cost. We only passed it 2 or 3 weeks ago. No one has any idea at this point in time what it is going to cost us or States or locals or whomever. I think it is premature at this point in time to take up this amendment. At some point in time during this year before we go to conference, we are probably going to have to deal with this question. But there is just nothing there to give us any idea. Estimates run from $5 million to $100 million, depending on who is asked.

The REAL ID Act authorized such appropriations as necessary to help States make their driver's licenses and other documents more secure for ID purposes. But there has been no time, as I have said, to fully assess the funding required in the first year of the program. DHS is not prepared to move forward quickly. I think the $100 million is absolutely premature. The CBO estimate is only $40 million in fiscal year 2006, not $100 million. The committee has not seen any of the estimates from the Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators which probably knows more about this issue than anybody.

There already exists certain interstate driver's license databases which perhaps could be used and save money which operate on the basis of multistate compacts. These systems currently in existence should be examined to assess their potential to expand or serve as models for a nationwide database. It may be that many costs assumed in the CBO estimate can be avoided by leveraging these systems. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.

And then, Mr. Chairman, the offsets the gentleman's amendment would cut into are very undesirable. Cutting these programs would be very unwise. The IAIP agency has already been reduced $11 million for failure to submit reports to the Congress. Any further reduction could impact information sharing with State and local agencies conducting vulnerability assessments and construction and renovation of space for the directorate.

A cut to Science and Technology may have a direct linkage to the success of other programs. For instance, a cut to the Office of Interoperability and Communications can greatly impact the effectiveness of resources spent on first responder grants. In every war effort, it is easier to fund soldiers than science because what soldiers do is obvious; what science does is not. However, like the development of the tank in World War I and the development of the atomic bomb in World

War II, science can profoundly influence the outcome.

There is reason to believe that homeland security science can have a similar success on the war on terror. We cannot cut the Office of the Secretary. It is a tempting target, but it has already been hit by everybody in the room. Their office is only $133-plus million, and significant reductions will negatively affect their operations. The office is largely salaries and expenses, and cuts will result in fewer people attempting to deal with an increasing workload. Fewer people means DHS will have less time to respond to Congressional inquiries, for example.

We have been critical of the office, but it is this office that will ultimately make the changes needed to make the Department work. They are working on the new Secretary's second-stage review even as we speak. So I hope we would not accept this amendment for the reason that we do not know how much money we need to run this program this year. We will find out as time goes by during the year. We can put money in the conference at the end of the year as necessary. So let us not jump off the cliff until we get to it.

Number two, this amendment would devastate the Department's operations because it goes right to the heart of what they are doing. I urge the defeat of the amendment.

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

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

The gentleman is right in the respect at some point in time we are going to have to pay the bill. At this point in time, we have not received a bill. We have no idea what the bill is going to be. We get different estimates. Different people have different ideas, but there has been no consensus reached on how much money is needed and to whom.

I assure Members in the due course of time when that information comes to us, monies will be made available to pay for this program in due course of time without hampering the agency, as this amendment would do. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment if we can go ahead and conclude it at this moment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

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

I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the other conferees for giving us a whole new effort, a major effort to try to control the borders and to deal with the massive illegal immigration problem that the country is facing. We have 11 million estimated illegal aliens in the country, and 800,000 or so of them are people who have been ordered deported and yet have absconded. Eighty thousand of those have criminal records.

This bill, when combined with the homeland security appropriations bills for 2006 that we marked up yesterday in the subcommittee, those two bills combined will give us a new, massive effort to deal with the problem. These two bills will give us 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, 568 new Immigration and Customs enforcement officers throughout the country, and some 3,900 new jail bed space to try to deal with this massive, overwhelming problem.

I want to commend the chairman for having the foresight, along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the other members of the conference, for giving us the new capability to tackle a problem that is proving to be very elusive.

So I compliment the chairman, and I urge everyone to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 20, I was tending to official business and was not present for rollcall vote No. 90. The vote was on S. 686. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the measure.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, House Report 108-773 which accompanied the Military Construction Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Bill stated, ``The conferees agree to provide an additional $6.5 billion for disaster relief activities associated with declared disasters such as Hurricanes Frances, Ivan and Jeanne.''

Supplemental funds appropriated in the wake of the four hurricanes may be used by FEMA in administering relief to stricken communities and victims in areas such as Florida where the President declared disaster areas that meet current statutory eligibility under the Stafford Act.

Madam Chairman, it is my understanding that the Stafford Act authorizes the removal of wreckage and debris resulting from a major disaster from both public and private lands when the President determines that it is in the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3. This is a jobs bill, a security bill and, most importantly, a lifesaving bill.

Unlike his predecessor, Chairman Young has not had the luxury of a new revenue stream to address the challenge of negotiating a new formula and numerous priorities. It has been a tough job, but I applaud the Chairman's tenacity and that of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the others on the committee leading to what I think is an excellent product.

I am pleased to say that Kentucky will be receiving a fairer share and more funding to address our substantial needs, and for that, I am very grateful. I would also like to thank Chairman Young for including $35 million to continue work on the Interstate 66 projects in Kentucky, a vital national east-west corridor.

The eventual and inevitable completion of I-66 will create a seamless and safer expressway from the coal beds of West Virginia to the corn fields of Missouri. I-66 will fill gaps in our national highway system and open up commerce to the Appalachian areas. Most importantly, this route will reduce the dangers of everyday travel for my constituents and the increasing number of visitors to the mountains in my district.

Finally, I want to thank the committee for continuing our commitment to the Appalachian Development Highway System. The benefits of this road development program to communities in my district cannot be understated. Communities have been reborn, businesses started, and health care received because of this investment. Over $2 billion will be invested to a commitment made to the Appalachian communities over 40 years ago, and I thank the committee for including these monies, especially for the Appalachian region.

This is a good bill, Mr. Chairman. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation and let us get on with it.