[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 128 (Saturday, October 9, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H9162-H9174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4567, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it 
be in order at any time to consider a conference report to accompany 
H.R. 4567; that the conference report be considered as read; and that 
all points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration be waived.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, might I inquire 
of the gentleman from Kentucky if the conference report we have today 
as it relates to Homeland Security, his word was, 2 days ago, titles I 
through V absent VI, I guess we were talking about, is it identical as 
to what our agreement was of several days ago?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the conference report that is 
being filed is precisely as it was when we left conference.
  Mr. SABO. So, Mr. Speaker, there have been no changes or additions or 
deletions?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  So let me be explicit. Does that mean that there is no change 
whatsoever from the decision made in the conference when the conference 
approved A-76?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield under 
his reservation, I at this point do not plan to object, but under the 
reservation of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), I just want to 
make one point. I referred earlier to what is happening in this House, 
when we see decisions made by subcommittees routinely overturned when 
somebody does not like them. I do not want to object, because this bill 
is a serious matter involving homeland security, but I must note that 
we are cooperating procedurally on this side of the aisle, even though 
this conference was gaveled to an end in a manner which prevented me 
from being able to get a vote on the matter that I discussed earlier on 
the previous bill, and in my judgment that was a slap in the face, not 
just to me, but to every member of the conference on both sides of the 
aisle who were prepared to support that motion.
  I think that when this House routinely allows votes to be reversed, 
as they were on the Medicare bill weeks ago, or when they allow 
conference committees to block what is clearly the action of the 
majority will in the subcommittees, then this House might as well not 
operate at all. We might as well just wire our respective buttons to 
our respective party leaders' offices and go get a steak somewhere for 
the remainder of the year.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the A-76 provision has not 
been arbitrarily removed. I wish I could say the same thing with 
respect to the extension of the milk program to which I referred 
several weeks ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not object to consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order 
of the House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4567) 
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see immediately prior 
proceedings of the House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report 
to accompany H.R. 4567, and that I may include tabular material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my intention is to be brief, and I hope that the debate 
today is brief because of the hour and the day of the week and the day 
of the session.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the body the second-ever 
conference report for the Department of Homeland Security. This 
agreement provides $32 billion for the Department. That is $1.1 billion 
above the current level and $496 million over the President's request. 
These amounts exclude the $2 billion supplemental provided in September 
for Hurricanes Charlie and Francis, as well as the $6.5 billion in 
supplemental funding formally included in as part of this bill for Ivan 
and Jeanne. Including these funds, the Department will receive $38.5 
billion in fiscal year 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention my concerns over 
attempts to add extraneous matters to this bill. I appreciate the 
desire by some people to attach legislative riders to appropriations 
bills. After all, appropriations bills are must-do legislation. 
However, these attempts, and in particular the actions taken by the 
other body to add extraneous matter, have led to unnecessary delays in 
the consideration of this bill that funds important homeland security 
programs.
  My colleagues might be interested to know that FEMA is running out of 
money. Despite the $2 billion given to FEMA just 4 weeks ago, the pot 
is almost empty, practically drained dry. There is an unprecedented 
amount of work to be done in the country because

[[Page H9163]]

of Hurricanes Charlie, Francis, Ivan and Jeanne, and, simply put, 
without some very creative accounting, FEMA would be out of money 
today.
  I am pleased that the Military Construction conference agreement 
includes emergency funds to help Florida, especially, recover from the 
devastation of the recent hurricanes, providing an additional $5.6 
billion for those efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, in just one year, the Department of Homeland Security 
has made tremendous progress. More work obviously needs to be done, but 
the Department, I think, is clearly on the right track, identifying our 
vulnerabilities, matching them to threats and putting out guidance on 
ways to protect our homeland. The conference agreement builds upon the 
successes of the past year and includes initiatives to move us closer 
to our goals of prevention, preparedness and response.
  In the interests of time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight just 
a few of the items included in the proposed agreement, items I know are 
of interest to all of the Members.
  First, there is $4 billion in the bill for our first responders. The 
agreement strikes a balance between funding high-risk communities and 
providing support for States and localities to achieve and maintain 
minimum levels of preparedness.
  The bill includes $1.1 billion for the basic formula grants and $1.2 
billion to improve security in our urban and most populated areas.
  There is $9.8 billion in the bill for border protection and related 
activities, including $145 million for new inspection and detection 
technologies. There is $340 million for the U.S. Visit Program, and 
there is $1.1 billion for detention and removal operations on our 
borders. The conferees provide $26.5 million in new funding to provide 
750 additional beds for detainees, permit removal of 5,000 additional 
deportable aliens, and reduce the risk that such aliens will be 
released into our communities while they await deportation.
  This funding will also advance our efforts to create smart borders 
that keep terrorists out without stemming the flow of free commerce or 
legitimate travel into and from the country.
  Thirdly, the conference agreement supports security for all modes of 
transportation, including $5.1 billion for the Transportation Security 
Administration, with $673 million for our Federal air marshals program. 
There is $118 million in the bill for air cargo screening, which we 
hear so much about. This money will support the hiring of 100 new air 
cargo inspectors, the development of new cargo screening technology and 
the expansion of canine enforcement teams. The bill also requires TSA 
to triple the number of cargo inspections on passenger aircraft.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, in case someone may have questioned 
what I said. This bill requires the Transportation Security 
Administration to triple the number of cargo inspections on passenger 
planes.
  The agreement also funds several initiatives for rail security, 
including $150 million for grants to high threat rail systems, hiring 
and deploying rail security inspectors and canine teams to screen for 
explosives and furthering intelligence-related activities.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, there is $1.1 billion for science and technology, 
targeting the research and development of technologies to detect 
biohazards and nuclear detection technology for cargo. We also continue 
to fully fund R&D for anti-missile devices aimed at commercial 
aircraft.
  Finally, there is $894 million for the information analysis and 
infrastructure protection. That is a mouthful, but it is to complete an 
inventory of critical infrastructure in the country, enhance current 
communications between Federal, State and local homeland security 
personnel, interoperability, if you will, and to assist local 
communities as they put protective measures in place to protect our 
hometowns.
  Mr. Speaker, the important work of the Department of Homeland 
Security cannot be emphasized enough. I believe this conference 
agreement builds on the progress of the past year and substantially 
furthers the protection of our homeland. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will 
soon bid farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Lt. Ben Nicholson, who 
has served the Committee on Appropriations over the past three years in 
two different Subcommittees.
  Lt. Ben Nicholson has been detailed to the Committee from the United 
States Coast Guard since 2001. He served initially with the 
Transportation Subcommittee; spent a year helping establish the new 
Transportation-Treasury Subcommittee; and this year came to work with 
the Homeland Security Subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations 
Committee had never had a detailee from the Coast Guard. Lt. Ben 
Nicholson was a pathbreaker for the service in that role, and he 
performed admirably. He did everything we asked of him, with pinpoint 
accuracy and usually ahead of time. I would also add that he served the 
Committee during interesting times, perhaps more interesting than he 
imagined when he accepted the job. Eight months after he began, the 9/
11 terrorist attacks occurred. Immediately after that, the anthrax 
attacks occurred. He assisted the Committee in overseeing the 
establishment of the Transportation Security Administration, including 
key analysis, which demonstrated the overstaffing of screening 
personnel in smaller airports. He made sure that shipbuilding loans for 
the Maritime Administration were contingent upon management 
improvements in the contracting and oversight process. And he properly 
evaluated, and helped us provide for, critical facility repairs at 
MARAD's James River Reserve Fleet, which was devastated by Hurricane 
Isabel last year. Ben's maritime experience and background were simply 
invaluable to our Committee.
  On the Homeland Subcommittee, we have benefited from the experience 
Lt. Nicholson gained as a Coast Guard Officer, in particular his 
insights into the operations of a complex military organization that is 
combined with a large domestic agency. He has superb analytical skills 
that have been critical in our review of a $32 billion budget request 
and in developing complex spreadsheets that synthesize funding issues 
into easily understood documents we have used in hearings, closed 
briefings, in Full Committee, and on the floor. His infectious energy, 
his focus, and superb analytic and technical skills have also helped 
keep the momentum for this bill moving forward. His high standards of 
professionalism and thoroughness are beyond reproach, and his 
contributions have been highly valued.
  Through all of this, Ben maintained the decorum and professionalism 
that we have all come to expect from our military officer corps, and he 
has represented the Coast Guard with the highest integrity and 
competence. Lt. Nicholson has served me, this Subcommittee, the 
Transportation-Treasury Subcommittee, and the House well. We are sorry 
to see him leave, and will miss him as our colleague--but are glad to 
count him as a friend. Each of us on the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee wish Ben all the best as he moves forward 
in his career, where we anticipate seeing great things of him in the 
coming years.
  I am grateful for his contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will 
soon bid farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Brian Dunlop, who has 
served the Committee on Appropriations over the past 2 years in two 
different Subcommittees.
  Mr. Dunlop will soon be leaving to resume duties as a senior Special 
Agent for the U.S. Secret Service. Special Agent Dunlop came to the 
former Treasury-Postal Subcommittee during the summer of 2002, and has 
proven himself indispensable to the smooth functioning of the Committee 
during the intense period surrounding the planning for, and 
inauguration of, the new Homeland Security Department and the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Subcommittee. His strong understanding of 
organizational dynamics, of operational issues and real-world, real-
time considerations for building a successful new Department 
contributed significantly to the success of this subcommittee. Brian 
brought to the appropriations process clear, thoughtful analysis and 
mature judgment developed in his successful career in criminal 
investigation and protective operations. He has clearly mastered the 
technical issues and folkways of the appropriations process and he 
undoubtedly has as good a working knowledge of the nooks and crannies 
of the Department of Homeland Security as anyone working there.
  Special Agent Dunlop has provided insight into sensitive law 
enforcement and security matters involved in setting up and overseeing 
DHS in its capacity as the newest member of the Intelligence Community. 
In this capacity, he facilitated the work of this Subcommittee by 
developing detailed analyses, preparing classified briefings, writing 
easy to understand factsheets and briefing packages on extremely 
technical issues; and developing and implementing complicated oversight 
travel for the Subcommittee. Brian has also been the ``go to'' man when 
the Subcommittee required answers on crosscutting law enforcement 
issues,

[[Page H9164]]

such as coordinating the security efforts of multiple agencies during 
high threat periods; as well as developing consistency in professional 
standards, training, and gun use policies throughout DHS.
  Brian was instrumental in evaluating the need to deploy 
Infrastructure Protection personnel to states and localities, whose 
responsibility will be to work with the public and private sector to 
implement security measures to protect critical infrastructure. His 
analysis and recommendations will have lasting effects, as protective 
security advisors will now be on site in every state in order to better 
secure our nation's infrastructure.
  Throughout his service here, Brian has shown unqualified 
professionalism, perception, and the great combination of a keen sense 
of humor, a cool head, and a modesty rarely seen on Capitol Hill. 
Special Agent Dunlop has served me, this Subcommittee, and the House 
well. We are sorry to see him leave, and will miss him as our 
colleague--but are glad to count him as a friend. Each of us on the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee wish Brian all the best 
as he moves forward in his career, where we anticipate seeing great 
things of him in the coming years.
  I am grateful for his contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

[[Page H9165]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC04.039



[[Page H9166]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC04.040



[[Page H9167]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC04.041



[[Page H9168]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC04.042



[[Page H9169]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the chairman on his work in 
presenting this bill to us and thank all the staff, both on the 
minority and majority, for their work in putting this bill together. 
This is a complicated bill and involved lots of hard work and many, 
many hours. I and all the Members appreciate the work they do for us.
  I will vote for this bill, but not with a great deal of excitement. 
One thing one can say for this bill is that it represents a very 
significant improvement on the President's budget. I find it rare that 
any of the budgets that come from the President that relate to homeland 
security reflect much of what I hear in the popular media and in the 
popular discussion by the President and other members of the 
administration. Their proposals rarely reflect a point of view that 
homeland security is one of the highest priorities of our country.
  Clearly, we made some improvements, and we have spent billions of 
dollars. My own judgment, however, is that the Department is much 
better on press releases than they are on accomplishments. Maybe they 
have an impossible task in terms of putting 22 different agencies into 
one agency in this period of time, but I still find that agency loaded 
with confusion, loaded with management problems, spending an incredible 
amount of time putting the basics together, shuffling boxes, trying to 
find out where money is, where money is not, all-of-a-sudden hiring 
freezes because somebody did not keep track of money. The basics are 
not there. So I think they have lots of work yet to do to focus their 
attention really on solving what is a significant problem in this 
country.
  I have expressed at various times some of my specific concerns where 
I think they are significantly underfunding homeland security in the 
country, and I will not repeat those today. Let me just, however, raise 
one concern.
  We clearly are moving backwards in funding first responders in this 
country.

                              {time}  1345

  Our total funding for first responders in this bill is less than it 
was last year. That simply does not make sense. There are some very 
specific programs that are being cut. One that I find very important is 
the Metropolitan Medical Response System, a program that predated the 
Department of Homeland Security, and it is being cut by around $20 
million, close to a 40 percent cut. That simply does not make sense.
  But for all the Members, I think they should be particularly 
concerned over what is happening with the formula-based grants program 
in this bill, and then further complicated by the Intelligence bill 
that we passed yesterday in the House and the bill that passed the 
Senate. Currently, the formula-based grants which flow to the States on 
the basis of population and for which they made plans on how they 
should be expended is $1.690 billion. That program is being reduced by 
close to $600 million in this bill, to $1.1 billion, a deep cut in 
formula funds that flow to the States, who it is going to hurt; and at 
the same time, we are upping the Urban Area Security Initiative by 
close to $200 million. But we are fundamentally taking money away from 
smaller States and from rural areas to fund the increase in the Urban 
Area Initiative Grant program.
  Then, that is further complicated by the bill that passed the House 
yesterday; and it is my understanding the bill that passed the Senate. 
They would further reduce the formula grant back to only a basic 
guarantee to the States, a minimal amount, and leave everything else at 
the discretion of the Secretary. How the Secretary intends to 
distribute that fund, we do not know. We have asked and they have no 
answers.
  So I would just suggest to all, to all of my colleagues who come from 
more rural areas, come from smaller-sized States, they are facing a 
disproportionate cut in local first responder funding in this bill in 
either the House or Senate Intelligence bills passed, and they will 
face an even deeper cut in the funding for local first responders, and 
I just simply think that is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  We would not be here at this point in time without the gentleman whom 
I yield to next. This full chairman of our committee has been marvelous 
in this bill in helping us through. I believe this is the last of the 
appropriations bills that this full committee chairman will, in effect, 
manage before this body; and I know that he is enormously pleased with 
the passage, or soon to be passed, I am sure, of the MILCON bill that 
includes aid for his home State.
  Mr. Speaker, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to this great 
public servant who has put up with all sorts of devilishness during the 
development of this bill, among others.
  So I yield such time as he may consume to the honorable gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I take this time to say that these are the last 
appropriations matters that we will deal with prior to the election. 
But I want the Members to know that when we come back in November, we 
and our counterparts in the Senate will have worked during the break to 
try to provide for the rest of the appropriations bills, that have not 
been completed in an omnibus package that we hope will be able to 
conclude the business of the 108th Congress.
  As we prepare to do that, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers), the chairman of this Subcommittee on Homeland Security, 
and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member.
  This is an extremely important piece of legislation. They have done a 
really great job. I can tell my colleagues that there have been many, 
many obstacles, and they have worked really hard around those 
obstacles, and they have produced a good product.
  But none of this could have happened, and none of what we just did 
earlier on the Military Construction bill or the hurricane 
supplemental, without tremendous staff. When it is all said and done, 
and the Members have their debates and their arguments and have made 
decisions, there is an awful lot of staff work that has to be done to 
help make that happen, and then to produce the product that we write 
and consider on the floor.
  I want to mention specifically the staff director and the clerk of 
the Committee on Appropriations, Jim Dyer; the full committee staff 
just across the hall from here, John Blazey, Dale Oak, Therese 
McAuliffe and John Scofield, and the others who work in the front 
office, Diann Kane, Sandy Farrow, John Howard and Jane Porter. Martin 
Delgado also had a big part of this supplemental on agricultural 
issues. Rich Efford was very heavily involved and responsible for much 
of the success in our transportation areas. Debbie Weatherly worked on 
Interior, and Kevin Cook on Energy and Water.
  Others who have been important to the emergency supplemental, include 
Kevin Roper on Defense; Tim Peterson on VA-HUD; Carol Murphy on 
military construction and whose bill became the vehicle for the 
hurricane supplemental. And Michelle Mrdeza on homeland security, Mike 
Ringler on commerce and justice, John Shank on foreign operations, and 
Craig Higgins on Labor-HHS, all have been important on the 
supplemental. Additionally, all of the staff of our subcommittees and 
Rob Nabors, who is the chief clerk for the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), and I am sure that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
will supply the list of all of his staff have been important to this 
work. We would like to recognize all of them because they have done a 
really great job.
  This is a good bill. After we vote on this Homeland Security bill, 
and when we vote on the Military Construction bill and the hurricane 
supplemental, I hope that then everyone will leave here in a relaxed 
mood and have a very safe journey home to do whatever it is they are 
going to do to campaign for reelection. I thank all of you for the 
support that you have given us. I really appreciate it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I 
think there is no one on that committee that

[[Page H9170]]

all of the Members have greater respect for than the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young). He amazes me to the degree that he keeps his calm 
and cool. While all of us scurry about with great excitement and angst, 
the person who stands there calmly and cooly and keeps our committee 
functioning is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I have just 
incredible respect and admiration for the work that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) has done these last 6 years as Chair of the 
committee. All of us have disagreements on policies and issues, but the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has made it a pleasant committee to 
serve on, and I think all Members just thank the gentleman from 
Florida, deeply.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo), the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking 
Member Obey) for their work on producing this conference report. I am 
pleased that the report contains more funding than was requested by the 
President.
  However, it is clear that this conference report does not contain the 
level of resources needed to ensure that the Department of Homeland 
Security, our Border Patrol agents, our airport security workers, our 
port directors, and our first responders urgently need in order to make 
America safe.
  This failure has occurred despite vigorous efforts to strengthen the 
bill. The ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the ranking member of the 
Senate committee, Senator Byrd, attempted to add $2 billion to the 
conference report for critical homeland security needs; but, 
regretfully, they were defeated on a 9 to 8 vote.
  We are at war against al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden declared one year 
after 9/11 that his goal is to kill 4 million Americans. Business as 
usual is not an option. Our terrorist enemies are not waiting. We must 
do all we can as fast as we can to protect this country.
  The administration tells us regularly that al Qaeda may attack us 
anywhere, any time, and admits that we are not as safe as we must be. 
The bipartisan 
9/11 Commission issued that same warning.
  Faced with the reality of an imminent threat of another terrorist 
attack, the President requested only a 4.6 percent increase, about $1 
billion, in our homeland security funding for this fiscal year. We 
spend that much in Iraq every week. In last night's debate, the 
President declared that he has tripled homeland security funding since 
9/11. That $20 billion increase, however, is only 2 cents out of every 
dollar of Federal discretionary spending.
  The gap between the rhetoric of protecting the homeland and the 
reality of protecting the homeland is wide indeed.
  The fiscal policies and priorities of the President and the 
Republican leadership are a record of wrong choices while America is at 
war. While the President expresses pride in spending $20 billion more 
on homeland security last year than we spent in the year of 9/11, the 
President's tax cuts gave the top 1 percent of American taxpayers, 
those making over $1 million, four times that amount of tax cuts, all 
the while America is at war.
  The reckless fiscal policy that has been pursued by the Republican 
leadership has resulted in our government borrowing $422 billion last 
year alone. This is half of all of the money we appropriated to fund 
the entire government last year.
  For the first time in American history, we have sent young men and 
women into war while passing the burden of paying for it to the next 
generation.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have not taken strong enough action in 
the wake of 9/11 to make our country safe from terrorist attack. Here 
are a few examples: America is not safe when we fail to install 
sufficient numbers of radiation detection monitors at all of our ports 
of entry. America is not safe when we fail to screen 100 percent of the 
cargo that travels on passenger planes. America is not safe when over 
24,000 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico are caught, 
but released into our communities because the Department of Homeland 
Security lacks funding for detention space.
  America is not safe when we screen only 5 percent of the 7 million 
cargo containers that enter our country each year for weapons of mass 
destruction. America is not safe when the government has only enough 
anthrax vaccine in our stockpile to inoculate 500 people. America is 
not safe when our Nation's first responders lack the equipment they 
need to talk to one another in the event of an emergency. America is 
not safe when the Department of Homeland Security's own Inspector 
General concludes that 3 years after 9/11 we still lack an integrated, 
comprehensive terrorist watch list. And America is not safe when our 
border inspectors and our police officers do not have access to the 
full range of information held by our government on terrorist suspects.
  We all know that it is only a matter of time before al Qaeda strikes 
us again. Can we say in all honesty that we have made America as safe 
as we need to be if we increase our investment in protecting the 
American people here at home by no more than what we spend in 1 week in 
Iraq?
  It is all about choices, and there can be no doubt that the American 
people will hold us accountable for the choices we make.
  We are at war against al Qaeda. Usama Bin Ladin declared 1 year after 
9/11 that his goal is to kill 4 million Americans. ``Business as 
usual'' is not an option. Our terrorist enemies are not waiting. We 
must do all we can--as fast as we can--to protect our country.
  The administration tells us regularly that al Qaeda may attack us 
anywhere, anytime--and admits we are not as safe as we must be. The 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued the same warning.
  Faced with the reality of imminent threat of another terrorist 
attack, the President requested only a 4.6 percent increase--about $1 
billion--in homeland security funding for this fiscal year--we spend 
that much in Iraq every week. In last night's debate, the President 
declared that he has tripled homeland security funding since 9/11. That 
$20 billion increase, however, is only 2 cents out of every dollar in 
fiscal discretionary spending.
  The gap between the rhetoric of protecting the homeland and the 
reality of a real commitment to protect the homeland is wide indeed.
  The fiscal policies and priorities of the President and the 
Republican leadership are a record of the wrong choices while America 
is at war.
  While the President expresses pride in spending $20 billion more on 
homeland security last year than in the year of 9/11, the President's 
tax cuts gave the top 1 percent of American taxpayers--those making 
more than $1 million a year--four times that amount--all while America 
is at war.
  This reckless fiscal policy has resulted in our government borrowing 
$422 billion last year alone--this is over one-half of all the money we 
appropriated last year to fund our entire government.
  For the first time in American history, we have sent young men and 
women into war while passing the burden of paying for it on to their 
generation.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have not taken strong action in the wake 
of 9/11 to make our country safe from terrorist attack. Let me give you 
some examples:
  America is not safe when we secured less nuclear material in Russia 
and around the world in the two years after 9/11 than in the two years 
before 9/11.
  America is not safe when we fail to install radiation detection 
monitors at all ports of entry and other critical sites.
  America is not safe when we fail to screen 100 percent of the cargo 
that travels on passenger planes.
  America is not safe when over 24,000 illegal immigrants from 
countries other than Mexico are caught but released into our 
communities because the Department of Homeland Security lacks detention 
space. Two years ago, on its website, al Qaeda took note of our porous 
borders.
  America is not safe when we screen only 5 percent of the 7 million 
cargo containers that enter our country each year for weapons of mass 
destruction.
  America is not safe when 120,000 hours of terrorist-related wiretap 
information lies untranslated at the FBI.
  America is not safe when the government has only enough anthrax 
vaccine in our stockpile to inoculate 500 people.
  America is not safe when we fail to aggressively deal with the threat 
of biological weapons by pursuing a ``Manhattan Project'' to

[[Page H9171]]

shorten the time between the discovery of a ``bug'' and the development 
of a drug or vaccine to counter it.
  America is not safe when cities like Chicago and New York have only 1 
health care worker vaccinated for smallpox for every 40,000 people, and 
some States have only a couple of dozen health care workers vaccinated 
against smallpox to enable them to respond to a smallpox attack.
  America is not safe when our Nation's first responders lack the 
ability and the equipment they need to talk to one another during an 
emergency.
  America is not safe when the Department of Homeland Security's own 
Inspector General has concluded that 3 years after 9/11 we still lack 
an integrated, comprehensive terrorist watch list.
  America is not safe when our border inspectors and police officers do 
not have access to the full range of information held by our government 
on terrorist suspects.
  America is not safe when we fail to protect the thousands of chemical 
plants that could serve as ``pre-positioned toxic weapons of mass 
destruction'' if hit with explosives by terrorists.
  America is not safe when we fail to prevent the rise of future 
terrorists by supporting the voices of moderation in the Arab and 
Muslim world through economic, educational, and cultural partnerships.
  America is not safe when we fail to keep our focus on Usama bin Ladin 
and al Qaeda--the enemy responsible for the attacks of 9/11.
  We can provide the resources necessary to improve our military 
counterterrorism capabilities, invest in smart, effective homeland 
security measures, and win the hearts and minds of people in the Arab 
and Muslim worlds--we can win the war against our terrorist enemies. 
But--it will require the right choices and the right priorities.
  We all know that it is not a matter of ``if' but ``when'' al Qaeda 
will strike again.
  Can we say that we have made America safe when we increase our 
investment in protecting the security of the American people by no more 
than what we spend in one week in Iraq? It's all about choices, and 
there can be no doubt that the American people will hold us accountable 
for the choices we make.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I recognized earlier the Committee 
staff. But after thinking about it, there is one staffer that I really 
need to make special mention of, and that is Mr. Doug Gregory who is 
very important to everything that I do here. He is very loyal, he is 
very smart, he is very faithful, he is very industrious; and I depend 
on him for an awful lot. He is very special, and he has been a very 
important member of my staff for 36 years, and this is Douglas Gregory 
of my district in St. Petersburg, and a professional member of the 
appropriations staff.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) who is a very valuable member of 
our subcommittee.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  I realize we all are on our way out of town, and it is important we 
get moving, so I will be very brief and I will attempt not to be too 
provocative. But I urge the membership to strongly support this piece 
of legislation for a couple of very important reasons.
  One, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) pointed out, FEMA 
money is running out and, as well, if we think about that in terms of 
what we need to do to make sure that we continue the momentum towards 
developing a safer, more secure homeland security, this bill needs to 
get done before we break for the election.
  I recognize that there are a lot of tough choices here. I recognize 
that there are a lot of disagreements over where exactly we ought to be 
prioritizing the expenditures here, but I view this as an evolving, 
accommodating balance.
  I want to salute the chairman of the subcommittee for his great work 
here. We have had our disagreements, but the chairman has always been 
there, and he has moved this bill substantially towards a system that I 
think can evolve into a system that allows the Federal Government to 
respond to the threats where they most exist.
  We can bemoan what is left to be done, but this bill actually goes 
out and begins to take and continues to take substantial strides 
towards getting us to the place we need to be. We need to recognize 
that either structurally or technically or, frankly, politically in 
this town we may not be ready to do all the things we need to do, but 
this bill moves us way along the line. I want to salute the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) for that, as well the ranking member on the 
subcommittee.
  We do not agree on the first responders money as well, but this bill 
does important things. And as one who comes from New York, a place that 
was attacked, this bill needs to get passed so that New York can 
continue to do the great work it does to protect this Nation and that 
city.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the House Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply make two points. I recognize 
that this bill is some $800 million above the amount that was requested 
originally by the President, and for that, I congratulate the 
subcommittee; but if anyone in this House thinks that this is an 
adequate response to the threat that faces us, they are smoking 
something that is not legal.
  The fact is that we have immense homeland security needs that are not 
being met. And the fact is also that despite his public protestations 
to the contrary, the President for 3 years in a row has strenuously 
resisted adequate funding for homeland security. Starting with the 
first meeting that I had with him in the White House after 9/11 when, 
before the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or I could even get a 
word out of our mouths explaining to him what some of the additions 
were that we thought needed to be provided, before we could even get a 
word out of our mouths, the President said, I just want you to know 
that if you appropriate one dollar more than I have asked for I will 
veto the bill.
  So much for an open mind.
  I really believe that with respect to adequate funding levels for 
homeland security that the President's conduct itself is a security 
risk, because we have immense needs that are not being met. This 
Congress on a bipartisan basis has consistently tried to meet those 
needs, and we have been consistently reined in by a White House which, 
as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) indicated, by a White House 
that thinks it is much more important to provide four times as much 
money to people who make a million bucks by way of tax cuts than to 
provide larger increases for homeland security funding.
  Now, reasonable people can disagree, but those are my views, and I 
hope that we are not proven to be right by future events.
  I just want to make one other point. I referred earlier to an 
important matter which was not included in this bill despite the fact 
that the Senate conferees voted by majority vote to include it and 
despite the fact that we had a majority of House conferees who favored 
that same provision.
  I do not mind losing. I lose every day. There is nothing wrong with 
losing, and I can certainly accept that provided that the process that 
is used to determine the outcome is fair. But when it is not fair, as 
it was not in this case, when the process is not fair, then it leaves 
one to want to oppose the basic bill that is before us.
  I am not going to do that because these matters are too important; 
but I do want to suggest that sometime, somewhere, it would be nice if 
committee judgments were allowed to stand rather than having the House 
leadership insist that they be overturned because they were not 
consistent with the dictates of that House leadership.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I reluctantly urge 
support for this bill. Again, I recognize the committee has tried to 
meet its responsibilities, but we are being hemmed in by a President 
who prefers to put money in the pockets of millionaires before putting 
adequate resources into the budgets that would provide greater port 
security, airport security and all the rest.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very hard-working member of our 
subcommittee.

[[Page H9172]]

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I 
will be very, very brief.
  I would only like to congratulate our great chairman, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) on a very difficult bill that is one that we 
cannot fail on. We have to be successful as far as our homeland 
security.
  I would also like to acknowledge the great work of the staff that has 
done a very good job and worked very, very hard on this bill.
  I rise in support of this conference agreement and urge my colleagues 
to do the same. I want to commend Chairman Rogers, Mr. Sabo and the 
subcommittee staff for their work in putting this homeland security 
bill together.
  The process of structuring this appropriations bill to address the 
operational needs of the 22 agencies and departments under the Homeland 
Security Department has, once again, been a difficult one. I suspect it 
will be difficult again next year, in part, because we are funding a 
mission that has many dimensions, and for which there are few 
absolutes.
  As I have watched and participated in this process, I have come to 
the conclusion that our approach to funding homeland security has been 
measured and judicious. We have not thrown good money after bad, but 
rather made difficult choices.
  There are some in this House who want to put more money in this 
bureau or that agency. Some of those Members are well-intentioned, 
while others simply want to create a political issue by forcing Members 
to make a choice between spending more money on the one hand, or 
appearing to be less than responsible on homeland security issues on 
the other. This is a false choice. In the future, we would do ourselves 
a favor by avoiding the temptation to politicize the funding of this 
important function.
  I hope that as we go forward in the FY-06 cycle, we will recognize 
that there is much room for honest debate on the subject of homeland 
security funding. However, none of our constituents is served well by 
gaming this funding debate, and certainly the mission of protecting the 
homeland is not served well by this approach.
  As we go forward in the area of homeland security, we will continue 
to make progress in sorting out priorities. We will continue to benefit 
from the ideas and knowledge of State and local officials from our 
districts around the country, and from the innovations of DHS 
officials. That collective wisdom will serve us well.
  The process we went through this year for homeland security 
represented an improvement over last year. Going forward, we will 
improve over this year. I think because, once again, we carried out our 
duty to appropriate these funds in a measured way, we will improve on 
the FY-06 process.
  Again, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking minority 
member, Mr. Sabo, and urge the Members to support this conference 
report.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot close this debate without thanking some people. 
My colleague on the other side of the aisle has been marvelous to work 
with. He is demanding about the facts, but he is agreeable in working 
with us on the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo) especially for his great work on this subcommittee, as he does in 
other parts of the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of this House was very, very instrumental as 
late as the early hours of this morning in trying to remove snags that 
might prevent this bill from being placed on the floor, and I have to 
publicly compliment the Speaker and thank him for taking the personal 
interest that he did in helping us to move the passage of the bill to 
the floor. I can say the same for the majority leader.
  We had a tough snag that the other body had placed in the way of this 
bill's coming to the floor, and as late as 2 o'clock this morning, the 
Speaker of the House and your majority leader, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) were up there working in their offices on the telephones to 
make this day possible. I have to publicly compliment them on doing a 
great job to help us.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, let me say thanks to this great staff. We would 
not be here without them. They do the hard work. They are up all night 
doing the tedious work. My chief of staff, Michelle Mrdeza, has just 
been terrific in making this day possible and making the subcommittee 
work. As did Stephanie Gupta and Jeff Ashford and Tom McLemore and 
Terry Tyborowski and Kelly Wade, and Brian Dunlop and Ben Nicholson. 
These last two, Brian from the Secret Service, a fellow with us, and 
Ben Nicholson, a fellow from the Coast Guard, have been with us all 
this year and they will be rotating off this assignment now. I want to 
publicly thank them especially for their service with us on this 
subcommittee.
  I want to thank my chief of staff, Will Smith, and Beverly Pheto of 
the minority staff, who has been especially helpful. We would not be 
here without them, Mr. Speaker, and I think we should publicly thank 
them for the great work they do.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members for being 
understanding of the difficulties in putting this bill together. We are 
trying to fund some 53,000 units of local public safety, as well as all 
the other myriad of things that go into funding this 22-agency new 
department in its second year. I want to thank the Members for being 
understanding and supportive and helpful in making that possible.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great 
disappointment that members have chosen not to include a two-year 
extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract Program in the Department of 
Homeland Security appropriations bill the House passed today.
  At the same time, however, I want to inject a bit of hope into the 
discussion, and also correct some misstatements that have been made--on 
the floor and elsewhere--about this issue.
  We still have time to extend the MILC Program. I, of course, would 
support doing it today--but we will again have the opportunity to do so 
in coming months. And it is my hope that other members of this body 
will see how crucial this program is to farmers and for maintaining our 
Nation's great dairy tradition--and pass this very important extension.
  Some members have stood on this floor and, for blatantly partisan 
political purposes, blamed the failure to extend the MILC Program on 
the president. But these critics have two key problems.
  First, they have a credibility problem. Some of the loudest critics 
actually voted against the legislation creating the MILC Program in the 
first place and have even authored their own legislation that would 
effectively end the MILC Program. And now they're angry that the 
program is not being extended? Their feigned anger strains credulity.
  Second, they have a truth problem. It is this president who signed 
MILC Program into law. And it is this president who stood in Wisconsin 
and pledged his staunch support for the MILC Program. The president is 
not member of this body and did not make the decision not to include 
the MILC extension in this bill. Any effort to convince people 
otherwise should be interpreted for exactly what it is--a cynical 
partisan ploy designed to affect the election in the key swing state of 
Wisconsin.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I commend members and staff of 
the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on the FY05 Department 
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Securing the resources we need 
for this country's long term war on terrorism is a formidable task, but 
one we must accomplish in a bipartisan manner. I support the 
appropriations bill before us today, yet I am concerned by the levels 
of funding for first responders, interoperability and port security. 
These are programs upon which the American people depend to protect our 
communities.
  As the Ranking Member of the Intelligence and Counterterrorism 
Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I support 
the funding needed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to 
provide accurate and timely intelligence assessments. Unfortunately, 
this bill cuts funds for the first responder programs.
  First Responders must have the resources they need to do their jobs. 
I represent the Kansas City, Missouri area, and my firefighters, police 
and emergency workers tell me that they have trouble communicating with 
each other because of incompatible equipment. This problem affects 
first responders throughout the country and is unacceptable.
  Missouri has the seventh largest highway system in the nation and the 
second and third largest railroad terminals in the nation. Port and 
transportation security is crucial to our Nation's economy. Six million 
cargo containers enter U.S. ports every year, but only about 5 percent 
of these containers are ever screened. This appropriations bill fails 
to adequately fund port security.
  Appropriations Committee Ranking Member David Obey attempted to 
counter these shortfalls with an amendment to H.R. 4567 that would have 
created a $3 billion contingent emergency fund for homeland security. 
Even

[[Page H9173]]

though this emergency funding would be contingent upon the President 
requesting it, the amendment was rejected by Republicans on the House 
Rules Committee. We owe it to the American people to make sure that our 
nation is secure.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Homeland 
Security Appropriations conference report.
  I would like to begin by commending Homeland Security Subcommittee 
Chairman Hal Rogers and Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young 
for their efforts to address our Nation's security needs with the 
unrealistic budget limits that were forced upon them.
  I also thank Chairmen Rogers and Young for including in the Homeland 
Security conference report several items I requested to address issues 
of concern I raised during subcommittee hearings with representatives 
of the Department of Homeland Security. Included in this final 
conference report, for example, are the following items:
  Security Training--Congress has done much to address the security of 
our aviation system since the events of September 2001. However, I was 
concerned that Congress had not adequately addressed the issue of 
security training for flight attendants, potentially the last line of 
defense in the aircraft cabin. The bill directs the FAA to issue 
regulations for basic security training for flight attendants.
  Port Security Grants--Another of my concerns was that resources 
currently dedicated to port security are too often diverted to private 
shippers at the ports while the port authority received minimal if any 
funds. This bill states the committee's belief that port security 
grants, for the 55 ports of national significance, should be based on 
findings contained within port vulnerability assessments. This means 
that limited resources for port grants will be used where they are 
needed most.
  Security Assessments--In addition, I was concerned that critical 
security assessments had not been completed. This bill establishes a 
deadline for the completion of security assessments for the top 1700 
critical infrastructure elements and key assets identified by the 
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. This 
deadline will help ensure security assessments on such items as 
monuments, landmarks, power plants, highways, and food and water 
sources will be completed by the Department.
  Independent Districts--Many of the districts that operate bridges and 
highways are independent authorities, and as such, their eligibility to 
apply for certain homeland security grants had been in question. The 
bill clarifies the eligibility of independent districts, such as bridge 
authorities, to compete for homeland security grants.
  Immigration Officers--The bill also includes language I drafted to 
prevent the Department of Homeland Security from moving forward with 
the unnecessary and potentially dangerous privatization of key 
immigration officers at the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
Services. These officers are responsible for handling classified 
information used to prevent fraud and the exploitation of our 
immigration laws. I am pleased that this inherently governmental work 
will continue to remain the responsibility of trained and experienced 
federal employees directly accountable to the Department and not to the 
bottom line of a private company. And I take the opportunity to thank 
the ranking member, David Obey, and ranking member Martin Sabo of the 
Homeland Security Subcommittee for their efforts to keep this language 
in the bill.
  In addition, the bill addresses two issues of importance to urban 
communities such as my own.
  First, funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant 
program to protect high threat urban areas was more than doubled for a 
total of $1.3 billion. These additional resources are critical to our 
Nation's large urban areas which face a higher terrorist threat than 
other parts of the country.
  Second, state and local emergency managers will benefit significantly 
from an increase of $56 million for Emergency Management Performance 
Grants. In California, emergency managers use these grants to develop 
plans to help prepare our residents for disasters such as earthquakes, 
fires, floods, or terrorist attacks. Although Congress has called this 
grant program ``the backbone of the Nation's emergency management 
system'' it has been drastically underfunded for years, and this 
funding increase is certainly a step in the right direction.
  However, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this Homeland Security 
Appropriations conference report resolves several of the issues I 
raised in hearings and increases funding levels in certain accounts, I 
remain seriously concerned that this bill as a whole underfunds 
important homeland security initiatives and programs.
  I am disturbed that the measure retains the current formula for 
state-wide grants that continues to underfund the homeland security 
needs of my home state, California. Over the past several years, the 
Department of Homeland Security has distributed 60 percent of these 
formula grants on a per capita basis that does not consider critical 
infrastructure, vulnerabilities, or the actual risk of terrorist 
attacks. For example, although California is the most populous state 
with the most areas deemed at high risk of terrorist attack, it 
actually receives far less funding on a per capita basis than any other 
state. In a time of heightened national security and limited local 
resources, we need to ensure that federal resources are targeted where 
they will be most productive in fighting the war on terror.
  I am also concerned by the deep budget cuts this bill makes to the 
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. This bureau is charged 
with processing work authorization and citizenship applications for 
immigrants in our country. This bill includes only $160 million to 
reduce the backlog of these unprocessed documents, a decrease of nearly 
$75 million from fiscal year 2004. These funding cuts simply do not 
make sense given that during the last 3 years, the Bureau of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services the last 3 years, the Bureau of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services has fallen far short of meeting 
its six month goal for processing citizenship applications. In fact, 
the backlog of these applications has grown from three million to more 
than six million nationally. These backlogs send the wrong message to 
our nation's immigrants who are eager to become full participants in 
our society, but must wait years before their citizenship applications 
can be reviewed and processed. I am hopeful that next year the 
President's budget will request enough funds to realistically address 
the Bureau's huge case backlog.
  And lastly, it is disappointing that the bill reduces to 75 percent 
the federal contribution given to airports to install state-of-the-art 
in-line baggage screening equipment. Previously, certain airports had 
signed letter of intent (LOI) agreements committing the federal 
government to pay 90 percent of these costs. Reducing the federal 
contribution creates an additional burden for our communities and their 
airports. I regret that Congress will not honor our original commitment 
to pay 90 percent of the costs.
  Unfortunately, fully addressing these and other critical national 
security concerns requires resources that Republican congressional 
leaders simply do not provide in this bill.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I will support this conference report to 
provide the resources, although limited, to help make our country 
safer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides critical 
funding for our Nation's first responders, for the defense of our 
borders and our ports, and enhances our transportation and 
infrastructure security.
  While I believe we continue to have critical, unmet homeland security 
needs, and have supported repeated democratic efforts to increase the 
funding in this bill, Chairman Rogers and Mr. Sabo have done an 
admirable job with their allocation, and I support this agreement.
  I am particularly pleased with the $65 million for the Staffing for 
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters--or SAFER--Program, 
and I was proud to have worked with Curt Weldon to pass an amendment 
this summer to provide initial SAFER funding.
  This conference agreement's $65 million in new hiring grants will 
help bring fire departments to adequate staffing levels and improve the 
safety of our firefighters and the communities they serve.
  The agreement also contains $650 million for the Fire Grant Program, 
and while we do not maintain the $750 million provided the last 2 
years, this is a $150 million increase over the presidents request--an 
increase that is vital to our firefighters, too many of whom risk their 
lives on a daily basis to protect our homes and our families without 
the modern equipment and advanced training they deserve.
  Thanks to the equipment, vehicles and improved training provided by 
fire grants, more than 15,000 departments across America are now better 
trained and equipped to respond to fires, automobile accidents, natural 
disasters, or acts of terrorism.
  We have an obligation to provide our firefighters with the necessary 
resources to improve their safety as they risk their lives in our 
defense every day, and funding for the SAFER and Fire Grant Programs 
helps us make good on that obligation.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this important bill, but 
with great disappointment in President Bush's failure to take 
affirmative action to support the two-year extension of the Milk Income 
Loss Compensation (MILL) program to help Wisconsin's dairy farmers 
survive when milk prices plummet.
  Two days ago, President Bush came to Wisconsin to proclaim his 
support for extending the MILC program for our hardworking family dairy 
farmers. Today, that provision was stripped by the Republican 
leadership in Congress from the last bill the House will consider until 
after the November election.

[[Page H9174]]

  The Milk Income Loss Contract Program, was established by the 2002 
Farm bill, and is the first national dairy program to transcend the 
usual regional tension that have arisen over past safety net proposals. 
The MILC provides a basic level of direct support to all dairy 
operations, regardless of the end use of the farmers' milk, by 
providing assistance only on the first 2.4 million pounds of production 
annually roughly equivalent to production of a 130 cow operation.
  As a result, nearly 86 percent of all dairy farms in the country, and 
nearly 90 percent in the Upper Midwest, are fully eligible for 
assistance under this limit. This counter-cyclical program has provided 
Wisconsin's struggling dairy farmers with $413 million in crucial 
assistance since its inception. Unfortunately, this national safety net 
for dairy farmers will expire in 2005 if we do not act quickly to 
extend it.
  Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to have the President say one thing 
while campaigning in Wisconsin and then do absolutely nothing to get 
the job done. All it would have required was a one-minute phone call 
with House Speaker Hastert asking him to extend this program for an 
additional 2 years and it would have been signed into law.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________