[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.
____________________