Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Thank you for your great service on Rules Committee.

And to the chairman, I thank him for his kind remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the base bill on homeland security funding. But there is one part of that bill which I think we could significantly improve. So I would ask Members today to vote against the previous question so that we can offer a separate concurrent resolution to the conference report which would delete from the bill four provisions as it relates to the regulation of chemical plants that, in my judgment, significantly weaken the legislation.

As background, the whole question of setting security standards for chemical plants is an issue that has concerned me for a long time. We have had a void in the ability of the Secretary to act to adopt any regulation as it impacts most chemical plants in this country.

This year, while we were considering the appropriations bill, we offered and adopted in committee an amendment that gave authority to the Secretary to adopt regulations relating to the security of chemical plants.

We envisioned that as being a temporary solution, while the authorizers had time at some point to pass regular authorizing legislation. That was stricken by a point of view on the House floor. In the Senate, fortunately, in an amendment by Bob Byrd, adopted that same amendment. And that is what we had in conference.

There then proceeded negotiations between the authorizers. And it ended up being a partisan negotiation between majority Members in the House and Senate which produced the recommended plan for the regulation of chemical plants, which the conference committee substituted for the Byrd amendment.

That more detailed recommendation has not been subject to debate in either the House or the Senate or considered in that form by any of our committees. And it has four provisions which I think significantly weakens the authority of the Secretary to adopt regulations. I think we should strike them.

The first one is a provision that states that: The Secretary may not disapprove a site security plan submitted under this section based on the presence or absence of a particular security measure.

What that means, I frankly do not know. The reality is that any security measure is going to deal with a whole series of particular security measures. Some are going to be more important than the other. Why we limit the authority of the Secretary in this fashion is beyond me. I do not know what it means. There must be some relevance to it. But it clearly would seem to limit the ability of the Secretary to adopt a comprehensive security measure.

Then we have another provision which is rather strange. And it says that if we proceed in court and any information is provided on plants to that court, then that unclassified information becomes classified when it reaches the courtroom. I know of no other instance in our government where unclassified information becomes classified because it goes to court.

I have no idea what the precedent for any such action is. It is unique. It is new. And we should not have it in this bill. I do not know, as I read this bill, whether the States have the ability to adopt security standards which are stricter than the Federal law. Some read this language to say it prohibits the States from having stricter standards.

I read it as being unclear, and where we turn that issue over is not to our judgment but to the courts. As I read the language, if a State adopts stricter standards and the Secretary approves them, I expect it will be challenged in court. If they adopt stricter standards and the Secretary rejects them, that will be challenged in court.

In my judgment, the States should have that ability. But whether we think they should or should not have it, it is a decision we should make and not simply leave it to the vagaries of what a particular court might decide.

Another provision in this bill simply says that it prohibits the public from filing any suit to enforce the provisions of this law. Again, that makes no sense to me and goes contrary to what we normally do in this country.

I am glad we are finally moving forward with chemical plant security. However, the negotiations, not by the conferees on the appropriation bill but by the negotiators from the two authorizing committees, have produced a

version of chemical security regulation that in my judgment is much weaker than it need be, and we should clarify it and strike those provisions. Not add anything new, but simply make sure that the Secretary has greater authority and to make sure that States have the right to adopt stricter regulation if they so desire.

So I urge the rejection of the previous question so that we can offer such an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here waiting for time to expire so I could cast a vote, and I heard the motion made by the gentleman from New York.

Then I heard the Speaker call for a vote.

I am just curious, did the Speaker call for a vote, and did I hear some people vote aye?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

I come to this House debate deeply frustrated over the chaos in Iraq. I voted against authorizing President Bush to take us to war in Iraq. I believed in 2002, and am more certain today that this war has been a grave mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but respect for the honorable American service men and women who have been put into harm's way. However, the goodwill I feel for these brave Americans is contrasted by my lack of confidence in President Bush and the Defense Department leadership. Once they got us into this war, they have, time and again, ignored sound military planning and blatantly disregarded the violent, grinding reality that has steadily descended on Iraq over the past 3 years.

As members of Congress, it is one of our highest duties to hold the civilian and military leadership accountable when they take our nation to war. To date, 2,500 American service men and women have been killed, and more than 18,000 more have been injured. There are no higher stakes than these. Unfortunately, H. Res. 861 does nothing to demand that the Bush administration correct its disastrous policies in Iraq.

Earlier this year, General Anthony Zinni, former Commander of the U.S. Central Command, pointedly expressed the views of many, many Americans about Iraq when he said, ``We are paying the price for the lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. Ten years worth of planning were thrown away, troop levels dismissed out of hand. . . . These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here.''

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and people across the nation want a clear plan for success in Iraq. Americans want to believe that there can be a successful end to this conflict, and that our soldiers, marines and other personnel will return home soon. Unfortunately, it is hard to hold onto this hope given the President's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the failures in his Iraq policy. We must change course.

The United States has a critical role in helping Iraqis to build a peaceful, democratic society. I am certain, however, that an open-ended U.S. military presence in Iraq will not accomplish peace and stability there. Furthermore, waving the flag, with Congressional resolutions like H. Res 861, accomplishes nothing.

With mounting casualties and the $320 billion in spending on this war, Americans deserve to hear the unvarnished truth from their President and elected representatives. I firmly believe that Congressman Murtha has the right idea with his resolution to redeploy our troops. We must make it clear to Iraqis that we support their transition to a peaceful and prosperous society. Hard-nosed diplomacy, Iraqi institution-building and support from the international community are better tools than the U.S. military to accomplish this goal.

I still seek answers to questions I asked Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in appropriations hearings earlier this year: What is your plan for success in Iraq? When and under what conditions can our honorable men and women serving there come home? The House debate on H. Res. 861 will not provide the answers, and I am still waiting for a thoughtful and credible response from Secretary Rumsfeld.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I would like to direct some questions to the gentleman from Iowa. I have trouble understanding the amendment.

Under my reservation, I would like to ask the gentleman from Iowa some questions.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman tell me, does the Department have the authority, not the authority but is the Department doing what the gentleman suggests today?

The Department of Homeland Security.

So the gentleman is suggesting that he wants the Department to be doing something that they are not doing today?

My question was not about local government. It was about whether DHS would be doing something under his amendment that they are not doing today.

What DHS funding is used today in contravention of section 642(a) of the 1996 Immigration Act?

So DHS would have to clearly be tracking significantly more money than they track today?

Tracking of how the money is spent that they do not do today?

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that from the answers this gentleman has given, that this clearly is putting additional responsibilities on the Department of Homeland Security.

Point of Order

Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I would oppose this amendment. I read the amendment. I am not sure it does what the gentleman from Iowa says it does. I am not sure it does anything, but if it does something, then it is very comprehensive. It either does nothing or else potentially has the ability to limit how DHS responds to emergency and disaster relief. It either does nothing or it may limit what border patrol can do in certain cities in this country. I am not sure which. It either does nothing or it does something significantly more than what the gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge the House, as it has the last 3 years, to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against the amendment. It clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, which is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition; but, Mr. Chairman, I don't rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we are told by Customs and Border Patrol that this amendment has no effect on its operation because it only shares information when it is required by international treaty, the same as what this amendment says. So to the best of my

knowledge this amendment simply restates what is policy.

If people want to put it in the bill, I guess that is okay because it apparently does nothing.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his amendment. It is a good amendment, and I hope it is passed.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I commend the Rules Committee for producing a rule that is much improved over last year, with one big exception. I am very disappointed that this rule fails to protect section 536, chemical security provisions, which I added to the bill in the Appropriations Committee.

Nearly 5 years after 9/11, the vast majority of chemical facilities in this country are not properly secured. They are prime targets for a catastrophic terrorist attack. Yet there is precious little being done to protect them. The administration acknowledges this problem, but says it cannot 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 the Senate authorizing committees has gone nowhere. What are we waiting for? Section 536 would end the stalemate. These provisions would give DHS the legal authority that Secretary Chertoff says he needs to regulate security at U.S. chemical facilities that pose the greatest risk to Americans.

In 2002, Congress addressed a small part of the chemical security problem. I see Congressman Young on the floor and I congratulate him because the security requirements of chemical facilities on ports under the Maritime Transportation Security Act and the Coast Guard are 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. The problem is there are thousands of other chemical plants and storage facility 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. If section 536 is stricken from this bill, Congress will appear content to leave security at these facilities to the conscience of their operators.

To my friends who would strike 536, I say, what do we have to lose by keeping this language in the bill? If before the end of this Congress the authorizing committees can act and the President signs chemical security legislation into law, then section 536 will be unnecessary. However, I have my doubts that will happen.

If section 536 is struck from this bill, I suspect that another Congress will adjourn without acting on chemical security. And then where will we be? We will go another year without security requirements at the Nation's highest-risk chemical sites. The American people waited too long for Congress to take responsible action to prevent a catastrophic attack on a chemical facility. I urge my colleagues to refrain from making a point of order against the chemical security provisions in this bill.

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.

If the gentleman would yield, visiting with Ms. Jackson- Lee, I think she only has one amendment left that she wants offered, and I think there are three on the list.

She will only offer one.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the point of order is raised. This provision does not undercut the ability of the committee to act. As a matter of fact, it encourages them to act. We have waited for years without any action on giving the Secretary the power to regulate some chemical facilities in this country that are prime targets for terrorists.

Mr. Chairman, I have to concede that this is legislation in an appropriations bill. I would hope that the authorizing committees can pass legislation to deal with this real problem. I just hope a year from now when somebody else stands in this chair, we don't have another similar amendment because the authorizing committees in the House and the Senate have failed to act again.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman for his comments. I would share his opinion and ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I concur in the chairman's comments. You have a good amendment, and I am glad to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. I am proud of the Minnesota National Guard and its rich history. The First Minnesota Infantry regiment answered President Lincoln's call to duty in April 1861 and those Minnesota soldiers set the tone for the tenacity and bravery that has become the ingrained ethic of the Minnesota Guard.

The people who make up the Minnesota Guard are some of the brightest our state has to offer. Today, more than 2600 Minnesota National Guard members are in or en route to Kuwait for final preparations before they head to Iraq. The 1st Brigade Combat Team will be deployed to Iraq and is expected to be the only National Guard Brigade Combat Team in Iraq-- all others are from active duty Army. This is the largest deployment of the Minnesota Guard since World War II.

While these brave men and women are serving our State and our country in a dangerous place, it is extremely important that we do our part to support them and their loved ones during and after the mission in Iraq. We must provide a strong network of support for families of deployed soldiers, and assist those families and soldiers during the difficult transition period following deployment.

I rise today in support of this resolution, in recognition of the Minnesota Guard's rich history, and in gratitude to those Minnesotans who have answered the federal call to duty.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to take part in the celebration of National Women's History Month by recognizing accomplished leaders from the State of Minnesota: Koryne Horbal, Dee Long and Vivian Jenkins Nelsen.

Koryne Horbal has blazed a trail for gender equality in Minnesota and much beyond. Her

many leadership posts have included Chairwoman of the Democrat-Farmer- Labor (DFL) party, founder of the DFL Feminist Caucus, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Member representing Minnesota where she started the DNC's Women's Caucus. She also served as the U.S. Representative to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. She served in the U.N. ambassadorial role for 4 years during the Carter Administration. During that time, she and Gloria Steinem became good friends and have since worked together on many projects.

Ms. Horbal has worked tirelessly on many issues, from women's rights to pay equity, from higher education to health care. She says there was one female Minnesota legislator when she began in politics and 17 when she stepped down as State Chairwoman. She led a study called Present but Powerless that examined the role of women in the DFL party and found women heavily involved but rarely in positions of power. While at the U.N., she was also partly responsible for the only treaty about women, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. The U.S. is the only industrialized country to have not signed it, she adds.

Ms. Horbal, now a consultant at the Women's Resource Center at Augsburg College, says she first got involved advancing women's rights when she realized how much women were left out of the process.

``I became a feminist one year when the party was deciding about which potential candidates would run for election,'' Horbal says. ``Women weren't included in this discussion. That's what woke me up.''

Dee Long charted new territory when she assumed leadership positions historically held by men. To date, not only was Ms. Long the first female Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, she remains its only. She was also the first woman to chair a tax committee in the Minnesota Legislature, and was the first woman to chair a joint Senate/ House committee.

Over the years, Ms. Long has taken the lead on many issues. But the ones that remain closest to her heart include environmental and tax issues. She helped lead the development of Minnesota's version of the Superfund legislation, where the polluter pays for hazardous waste cleanup. She also played a leading role in developing the Minnesota Livable Communities Act, which focuses on smart growth development. Today, Ms. Long works as the Director of the Environmental Tax and Incentive Program at Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy.

As new women politicians entered the Legislature, she advised them to not simply go to committee meetings. Know the issue backwards and forwards, and be a leader, she'd tell them. Being knowledgeable about the issues before you creates respect. She also encouraged women to get involved in issues that weren't historically women's issues, such as taxes, justice, and others.

``If you know the issues, you'll have the respect,'' she says.

Vivian Jenkins Nelsen also has a long list of firsts among her accomplishments. She is the co-founder of INTER-RACE, a diversity think tank located at Augsburg College. She was a Bush Leadership Fellow at Harvard University, and is a nationally recognized diversity practitioner, trainer and researcher. She was the first black woman graduate of Dana College in Nebraska. Further, she was the first black woman professor at Augsburg College, and first such administrator at the University of Minnesota. At the University of Minnesota, she served as Director of Human Relations Training as well as Director of Administration at the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

Ms. Nelsen was always exposed to human and civil rights work growing up, and sees her work as an extension of her parents' efforts. ``Then, they were trying to bring black people up. I am trying to help make corporate America and American policy ready and accepting of all people.'' Her father, a pastor in the Lutheran Church, worked for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and helped to organize the protest march to Selma. Ms. Nelsen recalls meeting with King as one of the critical moments that defined her path in life. She said when she met with a group of people with King, he focused his time and attention on her, because ``a kid came before everything else.'' This is a sentiment to she has taken to heart herself.

Ms. Nelsen has consulted on race and gender issues for the Lutheran Church. She has also served as president of the Minnesota Women Equity Action League, which acted as the legal arm of the gender equality movement. Today at INTER-RACE, she works with Fortune 500 companies, nonprofits, and policy makers at all levels.

``My job is about helping people find their voice about justice,'' Nelsen says. ``It's about being able to look at other people's behavior, but also their own.''

Mr. Speaker, these 3 women have impacted their communities and the larger world community with a lot of hard work, determination and grit. They have fought for greater gender equity and provided leadership to make it happen. I commend each of these women for the difference they have made, and continue to make every day.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot about the importance of identifying risk as we make security investments. And who could disagree? However, the President and Congress tend to stumble in putting a coherent risk-based philosophy into our budgets and policies.

I ask the Members to consider this amendment in the context of President

Bush's national security budget priorities for the coming year. The President requests $10.4 billion for missile defense next year, an increase of $1.7 billion.

By comparison, the discretionary budget request for the whole Department of Homeland Security is only $400 million above this year, almost four times as large an increase simply for missile defense versus the whole Department of Homeland Security. I have a hard time seeing how the risk of an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile attack is greater than the risk of a nuclear weapon in a cargo container coming into our country by ship. Therefore, this emergency bill is the time to address our most critical port security gaps.

I understand the Senate Budget Committee chairman also believes that critical security gaps should be addressed in this bill. Protecting our seaports is a lot like protecting our airports. We need multiple security layers. With international traffic, the first security check should be overseas.

The container security in this initiative, by which containers judged to be high risk are opened and inspected and all container manifests are reviewed, is operating today in only 43 of the 140 foreign ports that ship directly to the U.S.

Since 2002, former Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner has been talking about the value of CSI and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed it. However, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have been slow to fund and implement the program. This amendment would expand CSI to all overseas ports that ship directly to the U.S. and allow U.S. custom agents to review 100 percent of all container manifests.

Some may argue that we should settle for CSI in 50 foreign ports by the end of 2007. What about the other 90 foreign ports that ship directly to us? You can be sure those who want to do us harm will know which foreign ports are covered by CSI and which foreign ports are not.

The next critical step is to improve port security inside the U.S. The Coast Guard estimates that $7 billion is needed to bring U.S. port facilities into compliance with our maritime security law and regulations.

Let me tell you where we are today. Since 9/11, Congress has provided $910 million to harden our seaports. President Bush has never requested funding directly and specifically for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, with this amendment, we could install radiation portal monitors at every U.S. land and seaport of entry. Today, less than half of these radiation detectors have been installed. Without this amendment, the Bush administration would have Americans wait until 2011 to complete this crucial security measure.

Customs and Border Protection also need to do a better job in targeting cargo containers that should be opened, and in auditing trusted shippers. The General Accounting Office identified both of these issues, and this amendment would help us get these tasks done.

The third critical port security step is to ensure that the people charged to protect our ports are well trained, equipped, and prepared to respond to disaster.

The Coast Guard enforces port and vessel compliance with maritime security regulations. Last fall, the Coast Guard reported that its maritime security exercise revealed the need for a stronger chain of command, better guidance, and more training. The Coast Guard has also told us it has not completed its review of vessel security and has not reviewed all foreign ports that ship directly to us. This agency, which performed so well in response to Hurricane Katrina, can handle the tough jobs. Congress and the President should give the Coast Guard the right resources to do them.

Mr. Chairman, as the saying goes, practice makes perfect. We may need more simulation exercises for emergency responders at every level of government in order to identify the flaws in our preparedness plans.

Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that we have a dangerous gap in our emergency communications capability across the Nation. The bill provides a back-up communication package for the gulf coast, which includes trucks loaded with equipment that can be quickly moved into a disaster area and to bring up cell phones and public safety radio networks to help first responders in search and rescue efforts. We need this emergency communication equipment in other regions of the country as well. And this amendment would provide it.

Mr. Chairman, the American people expect us to do more than talk about inadequate port security and disaster preparedness. They demand that we back up our talk with action.

I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I understand the majority has the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, let me just make a few comments. First, let me be clear. I have great appreciation for the work of the chairman of our committee, Mr. Rogers, and what he has done in this subcommittee. The work of his subcommittee has significantly improved the recommendations of the President over the last several years as relates to homeland security. The bills that have passed Congress have been significantly better than what we got from the administration.

But I also agree with him that this bill today is about the war on terrorism. And one of the most important parts in dealing with the war on terrorism is dealing with port security and the security of containers coming into this country. I disagree with those who say that who owns and how terminals are operated is irrelevant to security. Who operates them and how they operate them is very relevant, as we have dealt with in this bill in committee.

However, how we provide the other security dwarfs the importance of who and how terminals are operated. How we deal with containers coming into this country, both at our ports and our other ports of entry in this country is tremendously important. We have made some progress, but anyone who suggests that we are there in terms of port security in this country today I think is badly misinformed. We have a long ways to go, and it has been over 4 years since 9/11.

We are not simply throwing money at a problem here. These are important questions, important problems that need more resources; and, frankly, in some cases, they need more vigorous action by the administration to make sure that foreign countries cooperate with us. This is an amendment that significantly improves port security and I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I am disappointed that the Rules Committee has not allowed me to offer my amendment to strengthen the CFIUS foreign investment review process during consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill.

Americans deserve a rigorous review of foreign investments that affect our national security posture. Never again should we find that the President and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Treasury and Defense are unaware of a critical transaction until after it has been approved.

As you know, the Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly last week to kill the Dubai World Port terminal acquisition, which, it is my understanding, requires a rule waiver to be made germane. It declined, however, to address the larger underlying process problem.

My amendment would strengthen the CFIUS process in the following ways: all transactions that could result in foreign control of any person engaged

in interstate commerce would be required to undergo a full review to determine whether it affects U.S. national security.

Today, foreign firms voluntarily, and let me say that again, voluntarily notify us of these transactions. I believe notification must be mandatory to ensure that our government knows about all such transactions.

My amendment would also retain the Secretary of the Treasury as the chairperson of the committee. The President would be required to approve or disapprove of all transactions. Today, if the President takes no action, the transaction is automatically approved.

The review period would automatically extend to the full 75 days. Current practice allows most transactions to be reviewed within 30 days, with an additional 45 days only if flags are raised.

Congress must be notified of Presidential decisions. Furthermore, Congress could overturn approvals within 30 days by a joint resolution. Today, Congress is notified of a CFIUS transaction only when the President disapproves one.

Within 90 days of enactment, the administration would also be required to report to Congress on foreign ownership of all U.S. critical infrastructure. Today, no one really knows how much of our critical infrastructure is in the hands of foreign companies and foreign governments.

Failing to fix the inherent flaws in the CFIUS process leaves our Nation vulnerable in the future. We should not take that chance. We should act now to strengthen the foreign investment review process.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this amendment can be made in order and the House can vote on this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the Rules Committee has not allowed me to offer my amendment to strengthen the CFIUS foreign investment review process to this bill.

Americans deserve a rigorous review of foreign investments that could affect our national security. We all know now that the Bush administration was sleepwalking through the review of the Dubai Ports World transaction to acquire shipping terminals at six major U.S. ports.

We should fix the process. Never again should we find that the President and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Treasury and Defense are unaware of a foreign takeover of a critical U.S. asset until after it is approved.

The bill kills the Dubai Ports World deal. It does not, however, deal with the larger problem of an inadequate foreign investment review process. An amendment I offered in committee would have fixed the problem for the future.

My amendment would strengthen the CFIUS process in the following ways: all transactions that result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce would be required to undergo a full review to determine whether it affects U.S. national security.

Today, foreign firms voluntarily, let me say that again, voluntarily notify us of these transactions. I believe notification must be mandatory to ensure that our government knows about all such transactions.

My amendment would also retain the Secretary of the Treasury as the chairperson of the committee.

Under my amendment, the President would be required to approve or disapprove all transactions. Today, if the President takes no action, the transaction is automatically approved.

My amendment would extend the CFIUS review period to the full 75 days. Current practice allows most transactions to be reviewed within 30 days, with an additional 45 days of review only if flags are raised.

The amendment would also require the Congress to be notified of Presidential decisions. Furthermore, Congress could overturn approvals within 30 days by a joint resolution. Today, Congress is notified of a CFIUS transaction only when the President disapproves one, and we discover about approvals, like we did in the most recent case, through the press.

Under my amendment, the administration would also be required to report to Congress on foreign ownership of all U.S. critical infrastructure within 90 days of enactment of this bill. Today, no one really knows how much of our critical infrastructure is in the hands of foreign companies and foreign governments.

If we fail to fix the deep flaws in the CFIUS process, our Nation will be vulnerable in the future. We should not take that chance. We should act now to strengthen the foreign investment review process.

I would hope the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman, would not insist on his point of order so the House may have a vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that a point of order is

raised on this very good amendment, but I would concede the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to celebrate Black History Month by recognizing distinguished Minnesota legislators who are civil and human rights leaders: Minnesota State Representatives Neva Walker and Keith Ellison.

Representative Neva Walker was born and raised in Minneapolis, and attended the University of Minnesota. A ``community baby,'' as referred to by elders, Walker comes from a family deeply involved in the community, especially the Sabathani Community Center which is a pillar of the community and a source of assistance to many. Walker grew up with this sort of activism, and she now embodies it herself.

Representative Walker was encouraged to run for office when lobbying Minneapolis City Hall on housing issues. When she learned that no African American woman had served in the Minnesota Legislature, this firmed her resolve to run for office. In 2000, Neva Walker was elected to the Minnesota House where she continues to address disparities of all kinds: health, poverty, racial profiling and out-of-home placement.

Representative Walker has a son, and is the youngest of seven children herself. In addition to her service in the State House, Rep. Walker contributes with many community involvements such as the Blaisdell YMCA board, the ``GirlsBEST'' initiative through the Women's Foundation of Minnesota, and the Minneapolis Youth Coordinating Board. She takes every opportunity reach out to people, speaking to groups that range from children in daycare to college students.

``I consider myself a seed planter,'' Walker said about her efforts. ``I'm always trying to educate and bring useful information to people, especially youth, people of color and women.''

Representative Walker believes it critical to get civil rights issues back into the public's eye. Disparities in poverty and the justice system are too great to stand idly by, she said.

Representative Keith Ellison was born in Detroit, attended Wayne State University and then came to Minneapolis to attend the University of Minnesota Law School. As a student, he first got involved in the anti-Apartheid movement. He and his wife have four children.

``I was raised in a household where I was encouraged to question things,'' he said. His grandfather had worked for voting rights, and Ellison grew up listening to stories of those experiences. Ellison's activism continued, and evolved into his profession as a trial lawyer, working on death penalty cases in Louisiana, as well as indigent defense work. Today at the Ellison Law Office, his legal work consists of criminal cases, civil rights cases and family law.

Ellison was first elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2002. He said that instead of cajoling and persuading government leaders to pursue worthy programs, he was determined to work for change from inside the system.

``When you're a community activist, you propose change,'' he said. ``But when you're in office as a public official, you make the change.'' As one of two black Representatives in Minnesota, Ellison believes he helps to improve the level of engagement for people of color in the state. ``I think all people need to have equal access to their government.''

He continues to work on issues of environmental justice, equal justice in the courts, voting rights, and public safety. He is also a cofounder of the Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota, which deals with environmental hazards posed by pollution.

Ellison believes that the civil rights movement forever changed America, but that Americans must still work for economic, health, educational and social equality for all people.

Mr. Speaker, Neva Walker and Keith Ellison are dedicated public servants who are making unique contributions to their communities, working for all people, but especially African Americans and other people of color, women, and the poor. They are committed to bringing the promise of America to all its people, and work day in and day out to achieve that ideal. I commend them for their activism and their service in the Minnesota Legislature, and their dedication to making their communities, our State, and our world a better place.