Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the important work that is being done to aid victims of torture, and to reemphasize my support for the reauthorization of the Torture Victims Relief Act,

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3989 and join my Democratic and Republican colleagues from Minnesota in their unanimous support for designating the post office in Dennison, Minnesota as the ``Albert Harold Quie Post Office.''

Albert Quie is a well-respected former Minnesota Governor, U.S. Representative, and state senator. He grew up on a farm near his hometown of Dennison.

Al Quie was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election in 1958 and served here for over 20 years.

Governor Quie left the U.S. House in late 1978 to return to Minnesota after his successful gubernatorial bid. While I never served alongside Governor Quie, I've always respected his integrity and humility in his commitment to public service.

Again, I rise in support of naming the Dennison, MN, post office after Albert Harold Quie.

Mr. Speaker, as people around the globe observe World Food Prize Day, I am honored to recognize Norman E. Borlaug, a man who worked wonders to boost agricultural production and helped reverse widespread hunger in many countries.

A former University of Minnesota instructor, Borlaug is also an alumnus, having earned his bachelor's, master's and Ph.D. there. Borlaug grew up on a farm, and became impassioned about the prospect of combating a wheat disease called rust late into his studies for his bachelor's degree. After 10 years of research, Borlaug developed a semidwarf variety of wheat that resisted rust and other diseases, was insensitive to light so that it could grow in a variety of climates, and was short and stalky enough to be heavily fertilized.

In time, he would become known as the Father of the Green Revolution.

By taking his wheat variety to Mexico in 1944, the country became self-sufficient in wheat production by 1956. By 1963, more than 95% of Mexico's wheat lands grew Borlaug's variety.

He took his success to other countries, notably India and Pakistan, reversing food shortages and helping to feed millions of people. He went on to train agronomists from every part of the world.

Borlaug was often warned that small farmers would never accept new technology. But he did not accept that judgment and worked tirelessly in the fields to earn trust, make doubters into believers, and change agriculture practices.

Borlaug also clearly understood that small peasant farmers needed more than improved farming production to be successful. Helpful economic policy had to exist to support the new technology, make the needed products available, and ensure fair grain prices. He has focused much time and energy to improve food distribution within countries, as well.

``If you don't do anything, you'll never have critics,'' Borlaug was known to have said. Although people questioned his technology or criticized it, it is believed that he saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived. He has also been called a ``peaceful revolutionary'' and a ``consultant to governments of every political ideology.''

Borlaug won the esteemed Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. In 2002, he received the National Academy of Science's highest honor, the Public Welfare Medal, for his work to fight hunger. He is the recipient of more than 49 honorary doctoral degree and many scientific and civic awards from around the globe. Because there was no similar award recognizing advancement in food production, Borlaug helped found the World Food Prize, celebrated yearly in October.

Mr. Speaker, as my home state celebrates Norman Borlaug Day and World Food Prize Day on October 16, I wish to extend my most humble gratitude and congratulations to this tireless and dedicated public servant. Norman Borlaug saw an opportunity to better lives, and he fought for it. He has spent a lifetime working to help countries adapt practices and policies to help them feed their people.

Thank you, Norman Borlaug. This nation--and many nations--thank you.

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

When the House passed the 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill, I said that the bill represented a substantial improvement over the President's budget request. The conference report does as well. I said that the bill included better funding for border enforcement, separate programs for transit and port security. This conference report does those same things.

I said that the House bill toughened up air cargo screening, privacy safeguards and the designation of security-sensitive information. This conference report includes these initiatives.

However, I also said that I had reservations about some parts of the House bill, and I continue to have those concerns. I have more reservations because of changes made to the bill in conference.

I am a strong minority who has strong reservations about the shift in distributing State and local grant funds from being based on population to being based on the Department of Homeland Security's assessment of risk and threat. These are funds that flow to State governments to be reallocated, at least 80 percent to local government. Last year, less than 40 percent of these grant funds went out by threat. This year 78 percent of the funding will go out by this threat measurement. I wonder how the DHS risk model and threat model will assess and treat Michigan, a border State, as compared to North Carolina, a hurricane-prone State.

Only two of the Department's 15 threat scenarios are based on natural disasters. As a result, I worry that our Nation may be less prepared for the disasters that we know will occur. My observation of the Department over the last several years leave me with little confidence that they are going to make fair judgments or correct judgments in making their allocation.

I am disappointed that this agreement does not do more to strengthen chemical plant security. In the conference, I offered an amendment, a simple amendment, to give the Homeland Security Secretary the authority he needs to issue requirements for security standards and plans for facilities he determines to present the greatest security risk. We should demand the Department get serious about hardening these chemical facilities. However, my amendment failed on a party-line vote.

I also have reservations about Secretary Chertoff's reorganization proposal, which is rubber stamped by this conference report. This reorganization plan was submitted to Congress barely 3 months ago, and we have not taken the time to evaluate it carefully. This reorganization was developed before the Department's poor Hurricane Katrina performance. It further weakens FEMA by severing its relationship to preparedness programs. I strongly believe that this is a mistake.

So, Mr. Speaker, as in so many bills, there are good things and bad things in this conference report. Members must make their own judgment. On balance, I will vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act suggests that a number of factors are considered to measure the severity, magnitude and impact of a disaster and authorizes FEMA to provide individual assistance. I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman from Florida to get this corrected within current FEMA statutory authorities and provide equitable assistance to all victims of Hurricane Katrina.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in total agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina shined a bright spotlight on troubling gaps in our Nation's homeland security. We all saw what it means to be unprepared: people die and suffer needlessly.

Americans are patiently waiting for competence and accountability from the Congress and the President. Our capacity to deal with catastrophe may actually have gotten worse since the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2003. The people demand that we fix what is broken.

Last week, Secretary Chertoff told me about his vision for improving national preparedness and response. What he said scares the living daylights out of me. In the Department's sixth reorganization plan in 2\1/2\ years, the Secretary proposes to sever the last ties between Federal disaster preparedness and response. He unveiled this proposal in July, before Katrina; and he is still determined to implement it on October 1.

With all due respect, the Secretary is dead wrong about what is most needed at the Federal level to coordinate and lead local, State, and Federal agencies in preparing for and responding to a major disaster, whether it is natural or man-made. If we have learned one thing in the past month, it should be that disaster preparedness and response must go hand in hand. Not long ago, FEMA did that well. The agency was robust, proactive and proved how good planning and coordination are critical to effective response. Congress should demand a pause before Secretary Chertoff implements more organizational changes that will further

weaken FEMA. It is the first step toward fixing our broken emergency management system.

This motion to instruct would do just that. It directs conferees to insist that the preparedness title of the conference agreement be in the same form as the House bill. The effect is to put a hold on the Secretary's reorganization plan for preparedness. Let me add that it lets other parts of his reorganization proceed. If he wants to take the air marshals from ICE and put them back in TSA where they were originally, fine. But this puts a hold on his preparedness plans.

The House should take this stand. Otherwise, DHS will simply shuffle organizational boxes again instead of tackling head-on the problems that Hurricane Katrina laid bare. At the very least, we should take time to think through the Department's preparedness plans in light of Katrina. We need to analyze what went wrong so we know how to fix things before the next catastrophe. It should be clear to everyone that we have not yet learned those hard lessons.

I see two keys to addressing the problems that Hurricane Katrina exposed: first, we need a unified, Federal ``all-hazards'' emergency management agency. It must have the stature, the resources and the clout to lead, coordinate, and demand the very best of local and State governments and other Federal agencies in planning for and responding to major disasters. Equally important, the President needs to appoint and empower well-qualified and respected emergency management professionals to lead this agency. There is no substitute for competent and accountable leadership.

Mr. Speaker, before FEMA was merged with DHS, it was a robust and experienced FEMA. We can rebuild it. We still have the blueprints. If you want to take us another step in weakening FEMA, vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct. If you think we should maybe take some time to think, then vote ``yes,'' because it is the right thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me quickly respond to my friend from Iowa. FEMA, we have spent the last year dismantling FEMA. What was FEMA? FEMA was not an operational agency, it was a coordinating agency. I do not understand all of this talk I am hearing today.

It was working with State and local communities and making plans. It was to work with a wide variety of Federal agencies that go way beyond those that are included in the Department of Homeland Security. It existed with cabinet-level status. If the director of FEMA called a department head and they knew that the director of FEMA had the President's ear, they listened.

Today I do not know that. Somebody that is three levels down in a new department that is floundering, is not working, calls some other agency and there is a slow response, surprise.

Mr. Speaker, we had a system, we should have built on it. Instead, we destroyed it. We are saying okay, let us have Congress look at it a little bit. Mr. Chertoff is going to implement this on October 1.

There have been hearings in Congress, three. Four questions on FEMA; one on preparedness. And that was it. That is Congress' involvement in looking at the major restructuring of this program. Any outside witnesses? No.

It is about time we do our work. Before we let somebody who has not done anything in his new office except draw a plan for restructuring have unbridled authority to do it, let us have Congress do some work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that Secretary Chertoff thinks there has been no structural change to FEMA. I think everyone in the world knows there has been a structural change to FEMA. It was an independent, free-standing agency; now it is a weak part of a weak department. Where are the records of all these people that the Secretary has talked to? Maybe Congress, before we approve some fundamental restructuring, should hear from one, two, three, maybe five outside witnesses, maybe from some who ran FEMA when it was a good functioning agency even.

There has been no outside testimony that I know of. There was not in our committee. There was not in the authorizing committee that I know of. Maybe there was someplace. But let us have some people come and testify to us so we can ask questions. That has not happened.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on this motion, there is lots of rhetoric here, but we are simply saying, let us take the time to think. Shortly after the flood with Katrina, somebody asked me what I thought we should do. I said we should do something unusual in this place, take the time to think before we jump to a conclusion.

Here we have plans by an agency developed some time ago that we really have not looked at in Congress. Maybe everything that the Secretary says is true. Maybe I am wrong and he is right; we should not have an enhanced FEMA, we should have a weakened FEMA. But let us look at it before we rush to say to do it.

I do not think you can separate preparedness from people with the responsibility to carry it through. Henry Ford once said he did not want a ``planned society,'' but he wanted a ``planning society.'' The two are very fundamentally different. One is that you have a process of thinking what you are going to do, and I think ultimately it has to be tied in to those folks who were involved in implementing whatever plans you are developing, which are constantly evolving.

Here we come with somebody who, it may look good to a lawyer who likes a good, concise brief, but has not been involved in the day-to- day responding to emergencies.

The people I hear him talk to who respond to emergencies tell me that it is just a very fundamental mistake to separate preparedness from the people who implement those preparedness plans.

So, Mr. Speaker, if you want us to take a pause, think before we act, to think before we let the Department act, vote ``yes'' on the Sabo motion if we think there is a better chance we might do it right in the end.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support for this bill and this supplemental appropriation. The Congress clearly needs to pass it as quickly as we can, but let me make just a few random comments.

I think it is obvious to most of us, or at least to me and some others, that the Federal Government probably would have responded more quickly and in a more professional manner to this crisis if FEMA existed as it existed before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and I think that is an issue at some point we have to deal with.

Secondly, I think it is appropriate that we deal with this bill quickly and as a supplemental appropriation today and do it quickly so we can meet real

urgent, current needs. However, at some point, as this need and the need for a supplemental grows, at some point we should follow regular order and have the administration respond to our committees and respond to questions and to build their case for what their plans are on what I expect will be a significantly larger amount of money that is being spent.

So while we proceed today, clearly we should plan, I would hope, the next time we face a bill, at least some committee hearings where Members can ask questions and the administration is required to provide some more detailed plans.

Thirdly, clearly the administration, we and everyone is guessing at what some of the needs are going to be, but one concern I have, what is lacking and that I have heard no discussion of, is we have dealt with kids in college, but we have thousands of kids in elementary and secondary education who have been uprooted from their homes, been uprooted from where they were planning to go to school a very short time ago and scattered throughout the country. They are going to have some very unique problems, and I have heard no discussion by the Department of Education of providing any additional funding for these kids in whatever school districts they end up around the country.

I think that clearly should be the responsibility of the Federal Government. I think they are going to have unique needs in terms of counseling, and it is going to put additional burdens for additional students on school districts; but if there are any plans for doing it, they have escaped me. So I would hope the administration, the Department of Education would move very quickly to develop some realistic plans on how we deal with kids who are going through great turmoil and are going to face the uncertainty of being in schools that they were not planning on.

So we need to pass this bill, but we have got lots more work to do.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Income Equity Act of 2005. I have long believed that the growing wage gap in our country is a big problem that we need to address. Wage disparities between high- and low-income households are the largest on record. My legislation would encourage companies to evaluate their pay scale with a focus on those paid the lowest wages.

The Income Equity Act of 2005 would do two things: For tax purposes, companies are currently able to deduct reasonable employee compensation from their taxable income--up to $1 million dollars. My legislation would cap the top write-off for a company at 25 times whatever the lowest paid full-time employee earns. In other words, if the lowest paid worker makes $20,000 in a year, the highest salary write-off would be $500,000--25 times the lowest salary. But the important part is linking top to the bottom. My goal is that companies would be encouraged to evaluate their entire payscale--with an incentive to re- evaluate the lowest salaries paid.

My legislation also addresses payment in the form of stocks. Our tax code currently has no jurisdiction over compensation in the form of stock options or unrestricted stock, which is where most high-paid executives are deriving the bulk of their bounty these days.

I am not suggesting that we limit CEO pay. However, I believe that hard-working Americans should earn enough money to properly feed, house and clothe their families, and American businesses have a role to play.

The idea for the Income Equity Act occurred to me during a Congressional trip to Mexico in the early 90s where I witnessed extraordinary wealth alongside with heart-breaking poverty.

For years, we've been hearing reports of the growing gap between high wage earners and low wage earners. And this year is no different. As reported by many national magazines in annual executive pay surveys, salary increases continue to be more and more disproportionate. Business Week magazine, for example, reported that average CEO compensation rose 15 percent in the past year, while average worker compensation rose a mere 2.9 percent. And in some cases, lavish rewards continue to be heaped on executives with little to no correlation to stock performance or the fiscal health of the company.

The Census Bureau's most recent report shows that the disparities between high- and middle-income and the gap between high- and low- income households are the largest (or tied for the largest) on record since this data has been available.

In 1979, the total income of the top 1 percent equaled the income of the bottom 27 percent. In 2000, the total income of the top 1 percent equaled the income of the bottom 48 percent. That ratio still stands today.

People at the bottom of the income ladder suffer when they can't support themselves by their wages. In the end, our entire society pays when those being left behind must rely on government support for food, housing and health care.

Income inequality also threatens our democratic principles: Americans hold deeply the view that every person willing to work hard should be rewarded. But equal opportunity is undermined when most workers do not fairly share in the wealth created by their work.

To illustrate this point, one person earning a minimum wage would have to work 11,660 years to earn what the top-paid CEO made in 2004-- which was $120.1 million. This is outrageous, and our government should not be in the business of encouraging or subsidizing such disparity.

While developing the assembly line and Ford Motor Co., Henry Ford firmly believed that all of his employees should be able to afford to buy the cars they were making. His compensation philosophy didn't just serve his employees well. It provided Ford Motor Company with a workforce that had incredible morale, high productivity, loyalty and ongoing recruiting success.

Mr. Speaker, there is no bad job, just bad pay. Removing tax deductions for excessive compensation sends the message that American taxpayers expect companies to do better by their workers.

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

Mr. Chairman, am I correct that the superintendent, the head of the Air Force, has indicated it is a problem and it would take him 6 years to fix the problem?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

And the chaplain at the Air Force who blew the whistle on this problem is no longer there?

The minister of the church that I go to locally is a former Navy chaplain and also served in the Marines. He felt strongly enough about this issue it was part of his sermon yesterday. His response to the 6-year problem was that if this were a problem for the Marines, it would have been taken care of in 6 weeks or less.

I would only suggest there is a problem. It is obvious it is great. The amendment is sort of mild. If the Air Force is with it, they will get it taken care of shortly before any of the reports in either of these amendments are required.

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

I rise to oppose this rule. Funding government is about money, but it is also about how that money is used. This rule leaves unprotected virtually all of the good government provisions in the homeland security appropriations bill. This rule should be defeated.

What does it do? It leaves unprotected provisions that will increase the screening of air cargo trade on passenger and other aircraft.

If my colleagues think we are doing a good job of screening air cargo on passenger planes today, vote for this rule. If my colleagues think we should do what Congress has said in increasing screening on air cargo on passenger planes, then vote ``no'' on this rule.

This rule leaves unprotected a provision that will fund additional explosive detection equipment to check airline passengers and carry-on and checked bags.

This rule leaves unprotected a provision that will ensure that passenger prescreening programs are secure and that the public's vital information is protected.

This rule leaves unprotected provisions to protect taxpayers' dollars from being spent on programs that are not well planned and properly implemented.

This rule leaves unprotected $84 million for checking airline crews and passengers against the government's terrorist watch list. Is that really what we want to do?

This rule leaves unprotected $150 million for port security grants.

This rule leaves unprotected a provision to ensure that those managing big government contracts have the proper training to do so. If you believe that the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Agency are managing contracts with quality and professional management, then vote for the rule. If you believe there are troubles, as indicated by report after report from the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, then vote ``no'' on this rule.

This rule leaves unprotected a provision to ensure that only truly sensitive information is designated as such. The Department's current approach permits everyone at TSA to designate any document as sensitive and, therefore, not releasable to the public.

This rule does not allow the Obey amendment to fund the border security requirements of the Intelligence Reform Act and the REAL ID Act.

This rule should be defeated.

The subcommittee developed a responsible bill that provided proper and necessary Congressional oversight of critical homeland security programs. This rule allows that oversight to be decimated.

The fact is that the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), did an outstanding job in developing a bill with proper oversight to present to the House. This rule would allow one-fourth, or a total of 14 pages of this bill, to be deleted.

We are here to conduct serious oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, not simply to rubber stamp the administration's budget request.

I oppose this rule and urge Members to vote against it.

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

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his cooperation and good work in bringing this bill to the House. This bill, in its current form, represents a substantial improvement over the President's budget request.

My comments are related to the bill as it stands. I am not sure, after all the points of order are made today, what will remain in the bill; but as the bill stands, there are many good things in this bill, including better funding for border enforcement and separate programs for transit and port security grants. I appreciate that the chairman worked with us to toughen up the bill on air cargo screening, chemical plant security, and privacy safeguards.

The Department has a long way to go in these areas. However, this bill pushes them to improve operations and better secure our Nation. I would especially like to point out the air cargo screening provisions in this bill. One of these provisions penalizes TSA for not complying with last year's law which required a threefold air cargo screening increase. Another provision mandates that TSA utilize their equipment to screen air cargo during the downtime in checked baggage screening. This should help raise the screened percentage of air cargo even further. Last, the bill includes $30 million for three air cargo screening pilot programs, two at passenger operations and one at an all-cargo operation.

The report accompanying this bill directs the Secretary to ensure that all DHS contracts with companies that collect personal information, such as ChoicePoint, will require the companies to have security procedures to properly notify individuals if their personal information is lost or stolen. The personal data of hundreds of thousands of people have been compromised in recent months. For 49 States, there is no requirement for companies to notify the affected people. We should require notification government-wide, and this provision takes an important step in the right direction.

The bill also demands that the Department get its act together to develop proper standards and processes for designating the information as ``security-sensitive.'' Today, TSA has no meaningful procedures to designate ``security sensitive'' documents. This has led, I believe, to TSA withholding information from the public that should be disclosed. This bill directs the Department to limit the number of people who can designate such information to establish internal controls to audit these designations.

I do have reservations about some parts of this bill, especially the funding levels for fire grants and the State homeland security formula grants. We will have an amendment relating to fire grants later. I happen to be in probably a small minority who thinks it is a mistake to distribute a portion of the State formula grant based on risk and vulnerability versus population.

Let us be clear. The urban initiative grant is distributed on a discretionary basis. My observation over the last several years, when trying to get information from the Department on how they made those judgments, we rarely get good answers; at periods of time, no answers; and at other times, very ineffective answers. I have no problem with whatever the judgment of the Congress is in adjusting the minimum grant that goes to particular States. However, I think when we assume that this Department has the capacity to make risk judgments on allocating funds to all 57 States and territories, I think we overestimate their capacity to make such judgments.

They have made mistakes in the past, and I just do not think they have developed the needed expertise to make the kinds of judgments we are assuming they can. If they had that capacity, then I think we might be headed in the right direction; but there is no evidence that they have that capacity today.

In conclusion, however, I must say that I think we must measure this homeland security bill by asking whether the bill helps close the gaps that exist today. I think the bill does that. I think it makes substantial improvements in how the Department would operate, and I am proud to support the bill as it stands today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), another distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The concern of the committee to get a rebaselining of the Coast Guard construction program is not something that has just happened recently. I think we have been working on this for a year and a half, 2 years, something like that, to get the rebaselining. It is not a last-second whim that has occurred, but something that we have been concerned about for an extended period of time and have not gotten a response.

Mr. Chairman, I and others offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment increases the funding for the fire grant program by $50 million, $25 million for the SAFER program, and $25 million for the regular grant program. With the $25 million added to the SAFER program, it would be funded at $75 million, or $10 million above last year's funding.

With the increase to the regular fire grant program, it would be funded at $575 million, unfortunately still a $75 million cut from last year's level. If we had more funding, and more offsets, we would have added it to this program.

I might add that whatever the problems are with the larger local grant program, this is a program that has worked very efficiently and effectively. It is a proven successful program, and grant decisions are made on the basis of independent board review.

The needs of our fire departments are great, and our Federal funding for the fire grant program has decreased in recent years and, actually, as a population that has grown, the number of firefighters nationwide has fallen.

Firefighters still lack basic equipment. The number of firefighters with proper breathing gear and protective clothing has not substantially improved since 9/11.

In 2003, Federal fire grant funding was $746 million; this year it is $715 million. This bill, with the amendment, would increase that amount to $650 million. The offset funding for the new personnel system would be decreased by $20 million, but still would have an increase of $17 million, or 47 percent under this mark.

What this amendment does is it is fully funded in offsets and makes minor adjustments in the chairman's bill but, in my judgment, will result in better fire department capabilities in our local communities; and I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me just simply thank the chairman for his support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the reason I move to strike the last word rather than speaking directly to the amendment is because I have mixed emotions. I think the problem the gentleman from New Jersey presents to us is one of the most important and most profound ones we face in the whole question of homeland security.

His amendment bothers me for two reasons: One, I think there are real problems where the money is coming from; and, secondly, I am concerned that we are transferring this problem from the Federal Government to the State governments. Because dealing with chemical security and the security of chemical plants is truly a national problem and not one that should be the ultimate problem of State governments.

The Department, in my judgment, has been incredibly slow in dealing with the problem. The Congress has been slow in dealing with the problem. A year ago we provided $3 million to the Department for a study on whether they should require vulnerability assessments and security plans from the chemical plants. The study has not occurred. We do have language in this bill that urges them to do more in the next year. I hope they listen to that more than what they did to the provision of $3 million last year.

But I would suggest to my friend from New Jersey that the format that we should be following is really what we did in the Maritime Transportation Security Act as it relates to ports. What we required in that bill was for ports to do vulnerability assessments and produce security plans themselves,

and that is what the major chemical plants in this country should be doing. We should not be assessing them, they should be developing their own vulnerability assessments and security plans. And then, as in the Maritime Security Act, where the Coast Guard assesses the plans, that is what we should be doing with chemical plants.

The bulk of the responsibility for implementing those security plans should be with the chemical companies, not with the State. It should not be with the Federal Government, in my judgment, let alone with the States. And I am concerned that we are putting up the assumption that this is now becoming a responsibility we are delegating from the Federal Government to the States.

So the gentleman is absolutely right. This is one of the biggest vulnerabilities that we have. The Department has not been paying attention to it. The Congress has not been willing to deal with the issue of whether this is something we want simply the Federal Government to do or whether we should be requiring the chemical plants, at least the major ones, to have the vulnerability assessments and the security plans and then they submit them to the Department for their evaluation. From there, we can move as to how you remedy the security plans and how you make judgment on the funding you need for local people who might have to respond to an emergency.

So I have mixed emotions about this amendment. I have problems with their premise with the offset and the basic delegation to the States, but the amendment raises, I think, one of the most crucial problems we face in homeland security. And to the other gentleman from New Jersey, who talked about a comprehensive bill he was introducing, I think that is the direction we should be going.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, in the supplemental bill that we just passed, there was $36 million that had been appropriated for the northern border which the Department was not spending, and with the cooperation of the chairman, we inserted specific language telling the Department to spend the $36 million on the northern border.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve my point of order, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the gentleman explain the amendment to me. What is it that somebody at the Federal level has to do?

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, who would make this determination?

How would they know how to make this judgment?

How would they proceed to make this judgment?

Are all these laws filed with the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security?

So they know today?

If any town is doing this?

Is there some registry of that?

Mr. Chairman, I know they are not hidden, but somebody has to find out. I have no idea how many endless grants they are making. The departments make an endless number of grants, and some of them flow to the State which then flow to local governments. In other cases, some go directly to ports.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I think, clearly, as the author of the amendment says, he clearly is legislating on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violating clause 2 of rule XI. By his most recent statement, he is expanding penalties for the existing law.

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

This is an amendment I think we voted on several years ago, in some variety of it.

Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what the full impact of this amendment will be. We voted on it, I think, in the last 2 or 3 years. I think generally it has lost by a significant number of votes. What its impact on local governments is, I think is unpredictable. There are hundreds and thousands of different local units of government, potentially receiving aid under this bill, which we would cut off because of their failure to give some information to the Federal Government.

I just think it is a totally wrong focus on what our problems are in this country. We have real problems with immigration. The real problems relate to how we deal with our borders. The real problem deals with how we deal with undocumented people in this country who have violated criminal laws of this country.

And to start harassing every unit of government, large or small, depending on what information they send to the Federal Government, tying that to they are eligible for funding to deal with basic homeland security in this country, I think is just a serious mistake. I would hope the House would reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is a good amendment. Hopefully we will adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman a break. I totally agree with the gentleman.

The biggest benefactor of all the airline security is the airline industry. Something happened post-9/11. We had to provide billions of dollars to loan guarantees to keep them operating.

I recall where many speeches on the new Transportation Security Agency was it was going to be fully paid for. I think over half of the money comes from general revenue today.

I find this amendment sort of unbelievable that the airlines would want us to do this. I totally agree with the gentleman. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

First, let me ask the gentleman a question: Is not a significant amount of the money that the gentleman is reducing consultant money?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

I am just afraid we are doing another miniature No Child Left Behind in this law that we passed a couple of weeks ago. It is the Federal Government again deciding how the States should run something that States have historically done. States have historically issued driver's licenses in this country. So now wise people in Washington are now telling them how to do it. Again, we are not going to pay them money to do it. Then we have all kinds of requirements that may or may not make sense. They make sense to somebody who sits down here and writes law who, I doubt, has ever administered the issuing of driver's licenses in any State.

Sort of a repetition again in miniature scale of what we did in No Child Left Behind. I think that is a law which is fraught with troubles throughout the country. This is much smaller in scale, but we are repeating the same thing that we did in that law. I think it is a mistake. I think it is going to complicate life immensely for all of our citizens as they go about the process of moving around this country and getting new driver's licenses.

But at a minimum, we should be doing a significant part of the funding to make sure we do not adversely impact all of the States by this wisdom that we are sending down from Washington.

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

I rise in support of the Obey motion to instruct. ICE simply needs more money, and I think we all understand that. For some reason, their budget has been in shambles ever since the Department was created. Their bookkeeping has been in shambles more so than their budget, and I am not sure if it is their fault or the fault of the central Department, but it is somebody's fault. It is all screwed up.

It is not because Congress has not provided the money they asked for. Last year, we provided slightly more than they asked for, and so they were in hiring freezes and training freezes and one problem after the other. Now they want to take money away from lots of other good programs to make up for their budget shortfall. We simply need to get ICE's funding straightened out, and this supplemental does it.

The other thing this supplemental does is add border agents. Whatever one's views are on all the controversies relating to immigration and other issues, one thing is evident, and that is, we need to strengthen our law enforcement on our borders, whether it is the northern border or the southern border.

I was out this winter and visited the southern border in California where clearly we have made significant process; but what seems to happen, we plug a hole someplace and the pressure comes other places. So we need to add border patrol people.

We were told in our committee that they should have the capacity to train about 1,200 people a year; and clearly, this bill provides less than 1,200, but even I think the President's request is an additional 200 for next year. So, clearly, they have the capacity to begin the process of training and hiring additional border patrol agents.

It is not something that happens. You do not say we want more agents and it happens tomorrow. You have to recruit them, you have to hire them, and you have to train them. The need is obvious, I think, to everyone; and this bill clearly moves us in the right direction.

So I hope we adopt the motion to instruct and adopt the policies implemented in the Senate bill on funding for ICE and for border patrol agents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join my Minnesota colleagues in expressing sorrow and support to the people of Red Lake, Minnesota, as they take steps to heal their community after the unspeakable tragedy of March 22.

It must have been a moment of unimaginable horror when parents realized that the children they sent off to school that morning were caught up in such terrible violence. In addition to those killed and injured, the entire community has been victimized by these acts of violence. After the initial shock, the community must come together to grieve their losses and ask the difficult questions: What went wrong and what can be done to keep it from happening again?

We were also reminded that there are heroes in tragedy who put their own safety aside to save the lives of others. Derrick Brun showed us what is good about this world in a moment that we needed reassuring.

The world watched a tragedy unfold in Red Lake. We must stand with this community as it pulls together to treat its injured and to heal its wounds. We offer our condolences and support as they continue the healing process that they have just begun.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.