[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 129 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8685-H8693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2360,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page H8686]]
H. Res. 474
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is the standard rule for the
consideration of a conference report. It waives all points of order
against the conference report and against its consideration and
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying
legislation. This rule, brought to the floor today by the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, funds our most important Federal
programs aimed at securing this Nation against terrorist attacks.
It provides $30.8 billion for the operations and activities of the
Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2006, an increase of
$1.4 billion above fiscal year 2005 and $1.3 billion above the
President's request. The conference report agreement reflects the DHS
organizational structure recommended by the Secretary on July 13, 2005,
and does not create any new aviation security fees.
This legislation secures our homeland first and foremost by
protecting our borders and revitalizing immigration enforcement. It
provides nearly two-thirds of the overall budget for the Department,
$19.1 billion for border protection, immigration enforcement and
related activities.
{time} 1745
This represents an increase of $1.2 billion over funding in 2005 and
$490 million over the President's request. These funds are used to
support cutting-edge technologies for high-risk cargo screening, to
expand cargo inspection at foreign ports, and to support a robust
revitalization of immigration enforcement along our borders and around
our Nation.
Among other security enhancing measures, this funding includes $1.8
billion for border security and control, funding an additional 1,000
Border Patrol agents. When combined with this year's supplemental
appropriations, 1,500 new agents will be hired in 2006. It provides for
$3.4 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, funding an
additional 250 criminal investigators and 100 Immigration Enforcement
agents. When combined with this year's supplemental, 568 new ICE agents
and officers will be hired for year 2006.
It provides $41 million for border security technology, including
surveillance and unmanned aerial vehicles; $562 million for Air and
Marine Operations to maintain the integrity of our borders and
aerospace security, as well as drug interdiction; $94 million for the
Institutional Removal Program, including an additional 100 agents; $40
million for implementation of the READ ID Act; $5 million to train
State and local officials and officers to enforce immigration laws; $1
billion for immigration detention custody operations; and $135 million
for transportation and removal of illegal immigrants.
This conference report also recognizes the active role that the
Department of Homeland Security must play in disaster mitigation and
relief efforts. It prioritizes spending on Federal response capacities
as well as increased planning and coordination with the States.
To accomplish this, it includes $1.77 billion for the Disaster Relief
Fund; $20 million for Urban Search and Rescue Teams; $20 million for
FEMA catastrophic planning; $22 million for the National Incident
Management System; $200 million for the Flood Map Modernization
Program; a requirement that DHS develop guidelines for mass evacuation
plans; and a requirement that DHS reports on the status of catastrophic
planning in each of our 50 States.
This conference report also provides $3.3 billion for first
responders, in the form of performance grants to high-threat areas,
firefighters and emergency management. Since September 11, 2001, $32.1
billion has been provided to first responders, including funds for
terrorism prevention and preparedness, general law enforcement,
firefighter assistance, airport security, seaport security and public
health preparation.
This conference report includes funding of over $1 billion for high-
density urban areas, including $765 million for urban area grants, $150
million for rail security, $175 million for port security and $65
million for other infrastructure protection, $655 million for
firefighter grants, $400 million for State and local enforcement
terrorism prevention grants and $185 million for Emergency Management
Performance Grants.
Finally, this conference report provides $1.5 billion for the
research and development of leading-edge technologies and $625 million
to protect our critical infrastructure and key assets. These funds will
be used to test and transition these technologies for use by Federal,
State and local officials. It will also support ongoing efforts to
develop secure communication systems with Federal, State and local
entities and continue efforts with the private sector to implement
protective measures around this important infrastructure.
To accomplish this, the bill includes $538 million to develop
radiological, nuclear, chemical, biological and high explosives
countermeasures; $110 million for the research and development and
testing of antimissile devices for commercial aircraft; $318 million to
start up the new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to help coordinate
global nuclear detection and tracking; $14 million to identify and
characterize potential biological terrorist attacks; and $93.3 million
for cyber-security technology.
Mr. Speaker, I could spend a lot of time listing the many strengths
of this bill and the thoughtful and threat-based way that it funds the
programs that keep American families safe. Instead, I want to take time
to strongly support this legislation with an open rule.
I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations for their
hard work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this Homeland Security conference report will be the
third and one of the most important appropriations conference reports
considered by Congress this session. In the wake of a wholly inadequate
Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, it is this Congress's
responsibility to provide the Department of Homeland Security with
appropriate funding and resources. That funding must also come with
proper direction and full oversight.
Unfortunately, this conference report falls far short of that
standard. Hurricane Katrina revealed several institutional problems
with the Department of Homeland Security, in particular with the
structure of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Over the past
decade, FEMA has been stripped of its duties; folded into a
disorganized department; and, most disturbingly, staffed by
inexperienced people.
With this bill, Congress had a golden opportunity to address the
institutional disarray that has tarnished FEMA. Instead of doing the
right thing, this conference report provides absolutely no guidance on
how to spend billions of taxpayer dollars or how to properly
restructure the agency. Furthermore, Secretary Chertoff has insisted on
restructuring the Department again, for the sixth time, without any
congressional oversight and hearings. He has proposed to place FEMA in
the Preparedness Directorate, further splintering the agency's ability
to respond quickly to disasters.
[[Page H8687]]
Disaster preparedness and response are intrinsically linked. FEMA
must be responsible for both. Separating these duties will only hinder
the Federal Government's responsiveness potential. This systematic
dismantling of FEMA's authority was the primary cause of the botched
Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
Secretary Chertoff's proposal to restructure FEMA will not solve the
institutional deficiencies of the agency. While FEMA was not perfect
before it merged into the Department of Homeland Security, at least
there existed a level of expertise and skill and FEMA's director had
immediate and direct access to the President of the United States.
Experience and professionalism have been missing from FEMA under the
Bush administration. Michael Brown, a product of political cronyism, is
the perfect example of what happens to government without thorough
oversight. Instead of having somebody with disaster experience,
President Bush ended up with an Arabian horse specialist.
A year ago, when the State of Florida was ravaged by multiple
hurricanes, State and Federal officials complained about the lack of
preparedness and inadequate response from FEMA. Counties that were hit
the hardest were overlooked while other counties that storms avoided
received millions of dollars in funding. Florida lawmakers this past
March urged two House committees with FEMA jurisdiction to hold
hearings on what went wrong.
Even after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit 6 months later, the
Republican leadership has continued to block the Florida delegation's
oversight request. And now we are all paying the price for neglecting
oversight of FEMA, most notably the thousands who paid with their lives
and their livelihoods.
The House Republican leadership has consistently ignored proper
oversight of this administration. It is clear that they do not want to
ask tough questions or demand straight answers. This Congress has
become a rubber stamp, and the results have been disastrous.
Mr. Speaker, Brownie did not do a ``heckuva'' job and neither has
this Congress. Unfortunately, when given the opportunity to do the
right thing, the Republican leadership has once again acted against the
best interests of the American people. Their response to these
disasters and to these deficiencies at FEMA is to install a partisan
committee that will simply gloss over the most important issues
surrounding the failures of FEMA. Mr. Speaker, that is not oversight.
That is a whitewash.
A more effective FEMA can only be created when independent,
experienced disaster specialists analyze the problems that Katrina
exposed and then identify solutions. Restructuring FEMA without
independent input and oversight is premature and will further plague
its prevention and response capabilities.
And not only is the oversight missing, Mr. Speaker, but so is the
money. While my Republican friends will highlight the $1.3 billion
increase over fiscal year 2005, let us be clear that this increase is
only barely above the current rate of inflation. In reality, there are
several funding cuts in this conference report that significantly and
adversely affect the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA programs.
This conference report cuts State and local preparedness funding by
$585 million, a 19 percent cut from last year. Fire grants are funded
at $60 million below the fiscal year 2005 level. Disaster relief
funding is cut by $370 million, and pre-disaster mitigation funding is
cut in half. Let me repeat that: Cut in half.
How can we justify cutting disaster relief and mitigation funding by
$420 million? Did Katrina not demonstrate how severely unprepared and
ill-equipped FEMA really is? What kind of rationale is this?
Thankfully, there are some programs in this conference report where
funding levels are justifiable. For instance, the Coast Guard's
``Deepwater'' program is fully funded at $933 million, due mostly in
part to the Guard's extraordinary rescue efforts after Katrina.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the majority is thinking. Every
single disaster, pre-disaster, preparedness and response program should
be fully funded. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita should have taught us
that. And along with full funding, there needs to be proper oversight.
Neither the two enacted relief packages totaling over $60 billion nor
this conference report provide any meaningful oversight. None. No check
on the flow of the money. No way to ensure the proper awarding of
contracts through competitive bidding. No accountability.
Thankfully, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member
of the Committee on Appropriations, offered an amendment in conference
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to provide detailed
information on how Katrina disaster relief funding is being spent. The
specific requirements laid out in this provision force the Department
of Homeland Security to send Congress weekly reports that detail any
and every kind of disaster relief spending, and I applaud the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering this important amendment. It is
an important step in the right direction, a step toward accountability.
I am also grateful to the efforts of the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of
the Committee on Appropriations, who fought hard last week to instruct
the conferees not to accept Secretary Chertoff's reorganization
program.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this conference report will pass by a
comfortable margin, but it will not have my vote. We can do so much
better than this. We need to do so much better than this, and I hope in
the coming weeks and months, both the majority and the Democratic side
will work together to achieve a product that we all can be proud of and
that will truly ensure the homeland security of the people of our
country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Massachusetts was very kind to enunciate and talk
about the contributions that have been made on both sides of the aisle,
Republicans and Democrats working together in an effort to make sure
that Katrina is taken care of. I also take him at face value that he
will not vote for this because there is not enough spending in the
bill. There is not enough money that is being spent, and he outlined
that money that he wants to spend.
The majority party does need to make sure that the bill that comes
forth is balanced and one that maintains the priorities of this
country. So we on this side are standing up in strong support of this
not only well-balanced bill but really will allow equal distribution as
we see the needs of this country and the spending and to control that
which we do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
{time} 1800
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I
appreciate his hard work on this and his very strong commitment to our
Nation's homeland security. In the last Congress he served very ably as
a member of the authorizing committee on homeland security.
I also want to join in expressing my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who worked very hard on this, and for the
bipartisan spirit of consideration of this measure. As the gentleman
from Massachusetts correctly said, this is going to enjoy strong
bipartisan support.
Why? Because we all know that there must be a focus on our Nation's
homeland security. It is part of our national security; and, frankly,
Mr. Speaker, a very important part of our national security happens to
be border security. One of the things included in this measure, of
which I am particularly proud, is a measure that in the last Congress,
I worked with our former colleague, Mr. Ose of Sacramento on, and my
colleagues from California, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Cunningham and others have
spent a great deal of time working on this, that is, we provide $35
million for completion of the 3\1/2\-mile gap in the border fence.
Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to be right on the border
near that gap. It is an area known as Smugglers' Gulch. It is an area
where people
[[Page H8688]]
have illegally entered this country, and they have pummeled the
environment. The notion of completing that 3\1/2\-mile gap is going to
go a long way towards dealing with our border security concern, number
one, and, number two, our environmental concerns in the area.
I also have to say, having spent a great deal of time with our border
patrol agents on the border just a few days ago, I am particularly
proud of the hard work they put in their job. They want to have the
ability to do their job. Right now they spend most of their time and
energy coming to this country simply seeking an opportunity to feed
their families. We need to ensure that they have the ability to focus
on criminals and potential terrorists. That is exactly what we want to
do.
That is one of the other reasons that we, in this bill, have
increased by 1,000, adding to the 500 already provided in the earlier
supplemental appropriations bill, 1,000 additional border patrol
agents. I hope that will help us turn the corner. I am convinced that
it will.
The overall commitment to homeland security is one which has, I
believe, been very adequately addressed in this important measure. I
urge my colleagues to provide strong bipartisan support for this
effort.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from
Texas. One of my problems is the fact that this bill cuts some very
important programs that I think do not deserve to be cut. It cuts first
responder grants, which I think is a mistake. It underfunds
communications equipment for first responders.
Just like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina highlighted
the problem of first responders having incompatible communications
equipment. When Hurricane Katrina hit, emergency personnel were on at
least five different channels and were hampered in communicating with
one another. Yet this conference report continues to underfund
interoperable communications systems. It cuts the disaster relief
account. It cuts predisaster mitigation. It underfunds port security.
It underfunds rail and transit security. It fails to include dedicated
funding for chemical plant security. I could go on and on and on.
Homeland security is not for free. If we are not funding these
agencies, and we are not funding the necessary personnel to be able to
protect our country, then we are not doing a very good job at homeland
security. One other thing I will say to the gentleman from Texas. I
believe that we have an obligation when we spend the taxpayers' money
that there is thoughtful and effective oversight. We have allocated
billions and billions of dollars already in response to this hurricane
with no oversight. I do not want taxpayers' money wasted, and I am
uncomfortable with the fact the bill provides no oversight. The
gentleman may not be, but I am.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Thompson), ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, later today the House will
consider a measure that provides $30.8 billion in funding for the
Department of Homeland Security. It also makes significant structural
and policy changes to the Department. I am pleased that the conferees
adopted many of the policy changes for which the Democrats on the
Homeland Security Committee advocated during the Department's
authorization process.
For example, I am pleased that the Department is directed to
undertake a quadrennial review, examine and justify multiyear
procurement projects and develop a long-term strategy to ensure optimal
development of explosive detection systems. I have to say, it is a sad
state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, when Congress has to tell the Department
to do planning.
In the short history of the Department, it has earned a reputation
for lacking focus and being crisis-driven. It took the London bombing
to remind the Department that it is the lead Federal agency for
protecting rail and transit. It took Hurricane Katrina to remind the
Department that it is the lead Federal agency for all disasters, not
just terrorism. We do not have the luxury of time to wait until the
Department gets another wake-up call. In July, the Secretary of
Homeland Security proposed a number of structural changes. Since that
time, Katrina revealed dysfunction at the highest levels of the
Department.
I cannot understand why the conference report adopts many of the
Secretary's proposed changes wholesale as if Katrina never happened.
The establishment of a preparedness directorate would not make us any
more prepared if FEMA is not fixed. The Department's changes are
outdated. If we grant them to Mr. Chertoff, we will find ourselves
revisiting this issue again after the next catastrophe. We need to fix
the Department properly, not with duct tape and wires, what this
conference report does by giving Secretary Chertoff carte blanche on
the agency's structure.
In response to this error, 13 members of the Homeland Security
Committee have introduced the Department of Homeland Security Reform
Act of 2005. This bill recognizes Katrina happened, and among other
things, creates a statutory requirement that the head of FEMA have
disaster and emergency preparedness experience. Current law requires
the head of the National Park Service to have substantial experience in
land management. The least we can do is require the director of FEMA to
have prior experience in disasters. We do not need any more Brownies.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the homeland
security appropriations bill. This legislation improves our homeland
security in three key ways.
First, it helps us crack down on illegal immigration and protects our
borders by providing funding to hire 1,000 additional border patrol
agents.
Second, the bill provides $3.3 billion for first responders,
including grants that go directly to high-risk urban areas and
firefighters. Significantly, for the first time, the majority of the
funding for first responders is appropriately allocated based on the
actual risk of terrorism to these areas.
Third, this legislation provides key funding for critical explosive
detection devices, which are used to screen high-risk cargo coming into
the United States through our seaports and airports.
I am proud that one of the top manufacturers in the world of these
explosive detection devices is CyTerra, a company headquartered in my
district of Orlando, Florida. On August 15 of this year, Senator Mel
Martinez and I toured CyTerra's facilities and met with their
employees. These hard-working folks are proud of their role in making
our country safer, and they should be. Their bomb detection devices
have already saved many lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the
underlying homeland security appropriations bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a leader on a number of homeland
security issues.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the current system for
distributing grants is fundamentally broken. I applaud the fact that
this bipartisan conference report gives the Secretary of Homeland
Security the flexibility to distribute more money based on risk rather
than population.
While I would like to see a much greater percentage of funds allotted
exclusively on risk, at least this conference report finally addresses
an issue on which many of us have spent years on both sides of the
aisle working to remedy. I find it inexplicable that just as we improve
the methods of monetary distribution, just as we improve the way first
responders can get what they need, we limit the availability, the pool
of needed resources. In fact, if it were not for both folks on each
side of the aisle, we would have accepted the administration's plan,
which would have been 4 percent less than what we have and no increase
whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, I think you should know today that the New York subway
system is under high alert. We need to understand what the
ramifications of that are. The FBI is working in concert with the New
York City Police. This is the first time they have had very specific
place, very specific time ramifications. Yet the coordinated and timed
[[Page H8689]]
bombings in London and Madrid, the latest example of the fact between
1998 and 2003, there were approximately 181 terrorist attacks on rail
and transit targets.
Since 9/11, despite the fact that passenger rail systems in the
United States carry five times as many passengers each day as do the
airlines, only $250 million of the estimated $6 billion needed has been
invested in improving rail and transit security.
Congress continues to provide woefully inadequate appropriations.
Only $150 million was appropriated for rail and transit authority.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should all be aware of this. It took a
bipartisan effort to get us this far. We need to understand what is
going on in New York City today, and I know this is not going to change
the dollar figure, the dollar amount of this legislation.
I would simply ask my brothers and sisters on both sides of the aisle
to take note that this is serious business. We need to continue this
hard work. The FIRE Act, for instance, was cut $60 million, which has
been extremely, extremely crucial to the 32,000 fire departments
throughout the United States of America. We cannot do everything. We
realize that, Mr. Speaker, but there are things that we can do and we
should do.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, serving as a member of the conference,
when you go and you look at an appropriations and tear apart where all
the money goes and what the priorities are and what the needs are and
work with the Senate, one of the most important attributes of getting a
good bill is listening to both sides, Republicans and Democrats, and to
understand those priorities as they relate not only to, in this case,
homeland security, but really the needs of the entire country.
The next gentleman, who is a leader in this Congress, did exactly
that. He took time with Hal Rogers and John Carter to understand the
needs as expressed by this administration, as expressed by the Senate,
and by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his
outstanding work and the work of the Rules Committee in bringing this
rule to the floor. I rise in support of the rule and the conference
report. We worked for months across the aisle to come to this point.
I want to reemphasize, though, how much this rule does strengthen our
work at the borders. One of the best employees I have ever had, Trish
Mullins, the best caseworker, probably, in any congressional office in
Tennessee, her son Scott Mullins is a border patrol agent on the
Mexican border. We hear weekly of the trials and tribulations they
face. They need the cavalry. With these 1,000 new border patrol agents,
it brings the total in this fiscal year to 1,500, and hundreds of new
investigators, criminal investigators through Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement. This really does strengthen our borders. We have got to
continue to take further steps.
I also want to say that one of the things that Chairman Rogers and I
have worked on for months now is to try to get the science and tech
directorate to invest in new technologies. This bill creates the
domestic nuclear detection office, which will really leverage all the
laboratories and all the scientific assets in the country for better
protection detection and get the equipment out there so that we
continue to further protect our country.
I also want to slow down and thank the staff, the professional staff,
22 agencies, nearly 200,000 employees. This has been very complicated
for 2\1/2\ years: Michelle Mrdeza, our staff director; Stephanie Gupta;
Jeff Ashford; Tad Gallion; Tom McLemore; Ben Nicholson; Kelly Wade on
the majority side; Beverly Pheto and the entire minority staff. They
have worked countless hours to bring us to this point. They are
excellent and professional.
I believe we will meet not only to do what is right and pass this
bill, but I think we are going to meet to actually continue this
homeland security challenge that we face. There is a lot of money in
the pipeline. I want to say to any of our people who have raised
concerns about the firefighter and first responder grants, there is a
lot of money in the pipeline.
We had a hearing earlier in the day about how much money is yet to be
allocated that is in the system. This Congress has funded these needs.
This is the bread and butter. This is not the response to Katrina. This
was under way prior to Katrina. The select committee, the supplementals
will address Katrina. We are doing that daily. Clearly, we have got to
do better.
We will meet to make sure the Federal Government's response continues
to improve. I encourage adoption of the rule and support for this most
important homeland security conference report.
{time} 1815
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, how quickly we forget. We are essentially flying blind
with this bill. We were supposed to have a comprehensive report from
the Department of Homeland Security which was long overdue, and then,
when finally produced, which was supposed to be comprehensive on all
the transportation sectors, was a regurgitation of open-source material
and news articles. They had an early, more specific version, but it was
pulled by the administration because it was measurable. It had goals,
objectives and technology. It would have shown how short the funding is
in this bill and how little progress we have made: $150 million for all
of the ports in the United States of America over the next year. Whew.
Mr. Speaker, we could be buying radiation detection equipment for
those ports, but that money is not available. It is not in the budget.
Aviation security, arbitrary cap on screeners. Okay, you can cut back
on labor if you give them adequate technology. But guess what? There is
not enough money in this bill to buy the new technology, the new
explosives detection equipment that should be at every passenger
checkpoint, that should be under every airport, that should be used for
cargo security, but they do not want to put up measurable goals,
because they are not getting there, and the American people would be
pretty darn mad about it if they knew.
Then, first responder money, come on. Interoperable communications.
First lesson: 9/11. We could not communicate with the fire and police
and other first responders in the buildings, and many of them died,
because they were out of touch as the buildings were collapsing, and
they had no notice.
Katrina, first lesson: no interoperable communications. Well, the
President provided for zero dollars, and this is up to $76 million
nationwide. Wow, that is enough to do three counties in my State out of
36, and that is the money for the entire Nation of the United States of
America for interoperable communications, the most basic tool that our
first responders need to protect American lives and to rescue people
and to better and more effectively deal with emergencies, whether they
are terrorist-generated or natural disaster-generated, and we can come
up with $76 million nationwide, not even a real tax break for some of
the rich people around here.
So to say somehow that this is adequate is absurd. If you set goals
and the goals are, every first responder in America has interoperable
communications, we are falling way short. If you say we are going to
begin to protect ourselves against radiological attack, against bombs
coming in in shipping containers, we are doing virtually nothing. If
you are going to improve aviation security, nothing.
Then, finally, they want to push us back to the good old days of
private aviation security, but it is not happening, because people know
what we have now is better. But in order to facilitate that push, they
cap the liability of the private companies who are so good and, now,
they have to extend complete liability exemption to the airports to try
and induce them to bring in private security, because everybody knows
it failed us on 9/11, and it will fail us again, but it will make money
for a few special interests.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Carter), who is a speaker who
[[Page H8690]]
also had an opportunity to serve on this appropriations conference in a
detailed fashion and made sure that he looked at those priorities which
were necessary for spending for this very important bill.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the State of Texas has demonstrated to the world that
they opened their arms to the evacuees of the 2 hurricanes that struck
our Nation and brought disaster to a great area of the Gulf Coast.
Texas has always opened their arms to their neighbors and said, come to
Texas, you are welcome.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem on the Texas border. I was down
in Laredo, Mexico, and Del Rio, Texas, recently where 42 American
citizens have been kidnapped. I have a photograph of a woman who was
burned alive, an American citizen, by these criminals who cross freely
across our borders of Texas. We say, welcome, in Texas, but when you
come here, do not break the law to get here. It is time for border
security in this bill.
I rise in support of this rule and this homeland security
appropriation bill because we start down the road to providing safe
borders for the entire southern border and northern border of the
United States. We add 1,000 Border Patrol men, which will be of great
assistance in shutting down this criminal activity and all of this
illegal behavior of people coming illegally into our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, 68,000 OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, have crossed within
the last 8 months. That is a crisis. We have to do something about the
borders, and this bill does that.
We have new agents for the Border Patrol. We have new criminal
investigators, we have new investigators for immigration and for ICE.
We have provided a great start on a secure border. We will continue to
work hard to secure the borders of this country so that this illegal
behavior will be caught and punished and these people will be turned
back, because, Mr. Speaker, our Nation's security depends upon it.
So I am very supportive of this bill, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on
the rule and a ``yes'' vote on this bill, because it is a vote for a
secure border for America.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2360 which will equip
our Nation to better prepare and respond to future natural disasters
and terrorist attacks. This bill includes needed funding for priorities
such as 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, port and transit
security improvements, the Coast Guard's Deepwater program and a pilot
program to improve air cargo screening.
However, H.R. 2360 is not perfect. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned
that this legislation implements structural changes proposed by
Secretary Chertoff's second-stage review without full congressional
scrutiny. While some changes may be warranted, today we will be voting
to shift the TSA, eliminate the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security and weaken FEMA at a time when we need the
agency to be strengthened, all without the benefit of significant
oversight.
That is why several members of the Committee on Homeland Security,
myself included, have introduced the DHS Reform Act, which would
improve the proposed reorganization plan by strengthening FEMA,
detailing duties of the new chief intelligence officer and chief
medical officer and establishing assistant secretaries for physical
infrastructure security and for cyber security and telecommunications.
Finally, it would require a quadrennial Homeland Security review,
unlike H.R. 2360, which simply encourages such a review.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we will have an opportunity to consider the DHS
Reform Act before it is too late to alter some of the significant
changes proposed by the second-stage review and included in this
appropriations bill. Nonetheless, while the conference report is not
perfect, it is indeed an important and significant step towards
strengthening our Nation's preparedness, and I will support H.R. 2360.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) who, once again, is a gentleman who served on the
conference report, who is a person, who is a veteran of the Committee
on Appropriations, a person who sits directly on the border of the
United States and Mexico; he is a person who has been involved for many
years in making sure that tough questions were asked and that we made
sure that a balance for delivery of money was given to agencies with an
expectation of performance.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and
for yielding me this time, and I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support both the rule and the underlying conference report on H.R.
2360, the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee
on Appropriations, I am especially pleased that this bill provides the
resources needed to help secure our border. There are a lot of
proposals in Congress that deal with the problem of illegal
immigration, and they vary tremendously, but they all have one common
theme to them, one common thread, and that is, they all recognize the
need to secure our border, and this bill helps to provide the resources
that are necessary to accomplish that goal.
The bill ensures that Customs and Border Patrol will have ample funds
to protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. We have to
secure the border, and this appropriation bill provides the Department
of Homeland Security with the resources it needs to get the job done.
From additional agents, detention space, airplanes, helicopters,
unmanned aerial vehicles, to better technology for securing and
facilitating travel into the United States by land, air and sea, this
bill has nearly everything that is needed to protect our homeland.
The district I represent includes a large portion of the Border
Patrol's Tucson sector, through which almost half, that is right, half
of all of the Nation's illegal immigrants enter into this country. The
negative impact that this has on communities in my area is staggering.
The impact of environmental degradation, the cost to hospitals, police
and sheriff's departments and other public agencies, not to mention the
tragic loss of life in Arizona in the desert, as many people who seek
to come to the United States for better opportunities perish in the
heat of the summer.
I am pleased that this conference report provides necessary resources
to protect our border, not only an additional $56 million for the
Tucson sector for expanding Border Patrol stations, fencing, vehicles,
lighting, border roads and sensors, but across our entire border. I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the
Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security
Administration's Registered Traveler program.
Like many of my colleagues, I was shocked to learn last month that
the TSA has discontinued the Registered Traveler pilot program
operating at five commercial airports. While TSA claims they need time
to evaluate the pilot program before expanding, I contend they have
been slow to act and, as a result, are depriving the traveling public,
particularly frequent travelers, a more efficient, effective and safer
manner of proceeding through airport security.
TSA has been running the pilot programs since the summer of 2004.
Each one was advertised to be 90 days in duration, at which point
decisions about further deployment would be made. However, we find
ourselves now over a year since these pilot programs began with TSA
still saying they need additional time to evaluate it. I do not buy it.
This is a classic example of the Federal Government being slow in
making critical decisions about a program which we know to be a success
and a program that we know also makes us safer.
[[Page H8691]]
Now, the TSA is continuing to operate a sixth pilot program at
Orlando International Airport that they launched this past June. The
Orlando pilot is different from the five pilots that have been shut
down in that it is a public-private partnership that is run in
conjunction with the airport, its vendor and TSA. I believe this
public-private partnership is the way to go, as it will allow the
private sector to add additional strengths to the programs, such as
offering greater flexibility in meeting the needs and customer
expectations, making rapid decisions on capital investment, and
customizing programs based on intimate knowledge of the local market.
The Registered Traveler program has promise, and I believe in it.
However, due to the manner in which the pilot programs were structured
and the lack of decision-making at TSA, this program is in jeopardy of
not getting off the ground at the national level. First and foremost,
there are too few measurable benefits at the security checkpoint for
individuals enrolled in the Registered Traveler program. Why does TSA
collect a list of personal data on an individual and then subject him
or her to a security threat assessment and provide so few measurable
benefits?
I contend that if the Federal Government knows who you are by running
your information against terrorist watch lists and other government
databases, then they should provide more meaningful benefits at the
security checkpoint such as not having you take off your shoes or not
having you take off your coat or perhaps allowing nonticketed
individuals back to the gates, as we did prior to 9/11, where they have
our fingerprints and our eye retinas to make sure that we are safe
going through. These are common sense benefits that can and should have
been granted to individuals who sign up for this program. With not
providing real benefits such as these, TSA is running the risk of
killing this program before it is even started.
{time} 1830
I am also extremely concerned with this language contained in the DHS
conference report that provides a monopoly in my view to one
organization to be the central collector and aggregator for biometric
data necessary for the background vetting of the Registered Traveler
program like other programs. This is not the approach we should be
headed in in the United States Congress. We should be promoting
competition, growth and an even playing field. And with a public-
private partnership like the public-private partnership taking place in
Orlando, the American people will win, and the options and competitive
environment will be what we need to make us safer.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York is exactly
correct. We do need more competition engaged in not only homeland
security but all across our government. The last session of Congress, I
had an opportunity to serve on the Select Committee on Homeland
Security and had an opportunity to work very closely with the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney). As part of this appropriations conference,
he very clearly and carefully brought forward thoughts and ideas, just
exactly what our colleague from New York (Mr. Meeks) stated about the
ability to create better competition but also to expect results.
Several years ago the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) was the
first Member of Congress to bring forward a threat-based funding
analysis plan. That was that we would aim our funding at the most
likely threats that our Nation would be facing. And it is this kind of
leadership that has allowed us, and I know we all do not agree on this.
I know that there are a lot of people that think you ought to divide up
the pie and every State or every city get so much money and every first
responder gets so much money. But that is not what this administration
and not what this Congress believes is the right way to do that.
I am pleased right now to have as our next speaker the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sweeney) and I would yield him 3 minutes.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for the
kind introduction and thank him for his great work at getting this rule
out and onto the floor and for his friendship and his hard work on
behalf of this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I have been on this committee for a number of years
since its inception. And every one of these bills comes to the floor,
and we have common interests in the bill that we can agree on and
common things that we can disagree on. But it is an accumulation of
work representative of the process here, a bipartisan, bicameral bill
that is not perfect by any means, but gets us significantly closer to
the places we all want to be. And I think this is probably the one
conference report that does that more than any other that I have been
fortunate enough to work on, and it is because, as the gentleman from
Texas pointed out, it does do something that is important and that has
been voted on by this body a number of times, and that is to distribute
first responder grants appropriately, threat-based, risk-based, first
before we go to minimum standards.
Now, we had negotiated, and we had a compromise with our friends in
the other body who still have not gotten to the place where they
understand that the most efficient way we are going to fund and protect
this Nation is to make sure that the funds and the resources are
directed to where threats most exist. And they insisted on still a
minimum level of funding for every State in this Nation that I think
exceeds common sense. But nevertheless, this is the first time we have
been able to codify in legislation and will enact in legislation the
idea that homeland security is going to be done threat-based, and that
is critically important. And it is why this is an important bill. It is
the most significant of the homeland security approps bills because it
enacts into law what this body has said now for 2 straight years that
we ought to be doing.
It does a number of other really important things, too. And despite
the critics, who we have heard from today, saying that it does not do
enough, it does more to improve border security than any other single
piece of legislation we have had before us since September the 11th. It
does important things on restructuring our capabilities in science and
technology, and every year, we have this debate that we are not
spending enough money, whether it is for screening devices in airports
or ports or other kinds of places or interoperability of
communications. The fact of the matter is structurally this bill does
more to get us to the place where we actually can have the technology
put to use in the field that will ensure that we are able to provide
that kind of support for our citizens and our first responders.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, after a very arduous
negotiation, the Coast Guard Deepwater program, which is critically
important to maintaining our security throughout, is really
strengthened here in this bill. Now, we have got a lot of work left to
do. There were billions, literally billions of dollars in the pipeline
for first-responder grants. And the most important thing that we can do
in this body, I think, is provide the proper oversight to make sure
that those billions of dollars get to where they need to go and they
are spent in a reasonable and responsible manner. This bill does that.
I want to salute Chairman Rogers for taking the prudent steps that he
has taken here and for really leading us. I support this bill and urge
my colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that is missing
in this bill is the lack of oversight. That is why some of us have
great concerns about it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this bill fails us on chemical plant
security. According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency,
there are 23 States, including my home State of New Jersey, which has
seven such plants where a worst-case release of chemicals could
threaten more than a million people per incident. And a part of my
district, in northern New Jersey, is home to the area commonly referred
to as the most dangerous 2 miles in America, an area between Newark
Liberty Airport and Port Elizabeth that is home to a number of chemical
plants.
The New York Times recently reported that one plant in this area that
[[Page H8692]]
possesses chlorine gas ``poses a potentially lethal threat to 12
million people who live within a 14-mile radius.''
Now, the attacks of September 11th made each of us realize that
terrorism had entered a whole new realm, one in which our Nation's
assets, infrastructure and people could be used against us. That is why
the Menendez amendment to the House homeland security appropriations
bill, which passed with the support of 224 of my colleagues, sought to
improve the security of that area of chemical plants across the country
by providing $50 million to State and local governments to enhance the
security of those plants and the communities that surround them. This
money could have been used to equip and train first responders, provide
assistance and guidance to chemical plant officials to implement best
management practices to improve security or to increase law enforcement
presence and patrols around chemical plants.
As a matter of fact, just this past week, there was a chlorine
incident in a pool plant that strangulated traffic in the New York-New
Jersey metro area. Unfortunately, the Republican controlled conference
committee chose to delete the amendment from the entire conference
report.
Hurricane Katrina should have taught us the importance of addressing
the problems we know we face before disaster strikes. The chemical
plants that dot northern New Jersey are the Lake Ponchartrain of our
region, and this Congress just decided to cut funding for the
equivalent of levees that would protect our people.
And not only did the conference committee on homeland security delete
that amendment increasing funding for chemical security, it also cut
State and local preparedness grants by $585 million, a full 19 percent
lower than the level in the last fiscal year.
This Congress had a chance to address a looming problem before it was
too late. The decision to cut funding for chemical security is an
astonishing abdication of Congress's responsibility to keep our
families safe.
And just while New York City at this very moment has heightened
transit security because of a critical threat of bombing on the subway
system, this bill woefully underfunds transit security.
While my colleagues focus on undocumented immigration in this
homeland security bill, they allow the Nation to be unprotected from
attacks on our chemical plants, transit systems, ports and the ability
of our first responders to respond. That is a Federal Government that
is failing to secure its people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this bill finally
fully funds the mitigation programs authorized last year by the Flood
Insurance Reform Act, which I was pleased to coauthor with our former
colleague, Doug Bereuter, which reauthorized and reformed the National
Flood Insurance program assisting property owners who live in
repetitively flooded areas. The programs in this bill are not funded by
taxpayer dollars but by a transfer from the National Flood Insurance
paid by premium dollars which authorized mitigation assistance to
communities to elevate properties or move people out of harm's way.
Hurricane Katrina highlighted the importance of preparing for and
mitigating against these natural disasters. While I am pleased that we
have partial funding, I am disappointed that the administration has not
requested funding for these programs earlier, an approach that could
have, if fully funded and aggressively implemented, saved lives and
property.
Unfortunately, the conference committee report cuts critical funding
for other important mitigation programs. It provides only $50 million
for pre-disaster mitigation, which is 67 percent below the House passed
level and the President's request and 50 percent below the level for
last year. This is what helps keep people out of harm's way.
But my deepest concern in the report, I must say, is a local concern,
dealing with what it does to Portland's airport screeners with a
reduction of over 2,000 from last year and the President's request.
These have led directly to cuts in screener levels at over 200 airports
across the country.
The airport that serves the Portland metropolitan area is hit the
hardest in the country, losing over a third of our screeners despite an
increase in our air traffic. These cuts will impact not just my
community but those across the country and undermine our air
transportation system.
The cuts will lead to longer lines and lost luggage. These proposed
cuts will leave Portland less protected than it was before 9/11. We
have introduced a resolution of inquiry to find out why in the world
TSA wants to do that.
Unless we in Congress understand how TSA is doing the job of cutting
funding for these screeners, they will come back to haunt our local
communities and our already ailing airlines. I think our constituents
deserve better.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, let me begin by saying something nice to the majority.
I would like to point out for the record that this is the first
conference report in this Congress that has lain over for 3 days as
required under the rules of the House, so I want to thank the Speaker
and the majority leader and the members of the Rules Committee for
following the rules of the House for a change. I hope we can do this
more often.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me address the substance of this conference
report. This conference report cuts first-responder grants. We have
heard that over and over and over again. And let me just say to my
colleagues on the other side who say that somehow there is money in the
pipeline, well, there shouldn't be any money in the pipeline. The need
is that great.
The first responders in this country, our fire fighters and our
police officers, they do not want resolutions of support. They do not
want your eloquent speeches. They do not want your meaningless
proclamations. What they want, what they need are the resources to be
able to do their job, to protect their communities.
And yet, under this conference report, three of the four major grants
programs for first responders in the Department of Homeland Security
are cut below fiscal year 2005 levels. It underfunds communications
equipment for first responders. We have been talking about that over
and over throughout this debate.
But what is particularly astonishing to me is that, despite what we
saw in Katrina, where people could not communicate with each other,
similar to what happened during 9/11, the conference report actually
provides $15 million or 36 percent less than the amount the House
provided for this equipment in the original bill back in May before
Katrina ever struck.
Now we have heard a lot on the other side about budget priorities and
limited moneys and funding shortfalls. But we have to get this right.
This is about protecting our homeland security. This is government's
first responsibility, to protect the people of this country.
You never talk about budget priorities. You never talk about money
shortfalls when it comes to tax cuts that benefit mostly the richest
people in this country. But yet when it comes to protecting people,
providing the equipment that our first responders need, providing the
equipment our communities need to protect themselves against a
terrorist attack or a natural disaster, somehow we do not have the
money.
I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). The Chair will remind
all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House
and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
{time} 1845
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased and proud today to have the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) to lead us today as we have an opportunity to debate, discuss,
and vote on this important appropriations bill for homeland security.
[[Page H8693]]
Mr. Speaker, I will admit to my colleagues we worked hard on this
bill. It is a bipartisan effort. It was one that employed a lot of
people with a lot of thoughts and ideas. We worked with the Senate, we
worked with the administration, a lot of work, but what we have done is
produce a package that is threat-based. It is based on those experts
who see the threat that is aimed against the United States, and they
are numerous. They are numerous. They are not in our largest cities,
but along our border, but, Mr. Speaker, we have worked together to make
sure that in a bipartisan fashion this was addressed, and I am pleased
and proud today to say that this is a threat-based bill, based upon
what the experts tell us is facing the United States today.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight the retirement of a very
important person in the administration. He is a former commissioner of
U.S. Customs; and under Homeland Security, he has been commissioner of
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Judge Robert Bonner from Los
Angeles, California, who has served this great Nation for a number of
years as a Federal judge and once again in the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection. Judge Bonner will be leaving in just about a month from his
service to the administration; and Judge Bonner has been a man of not
only substance and vision but a person who has offered Members of
Congress his best advice on how best to deal with the threats against
this Nation.
So I would like to highlight not only the service to this country
that the Members of Congress have done in this appropriations bill but
also working with the administration, with such fine people as Judge
Bonner.
Mr. Speaker, I will confess to my colleagues that this bill that we
have here today is aimed at averting and stopping the next terrorist
attack that comes aimed at this country. I hope that we have put the
best minds to this and that we are prepared.
I am prepared to tell my colleagues right now I support this rule and
the underlying legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will ultimately support the
underlying legislation under the Conference Report, but I recognize
that it has many shortfalls that will affect this nation's ability to
respond to a new and substantial set of circumstances--namely the
aftermath of Katrina and Rita. I speak not only from the standpoint of
a Representative of an area that experienced compound effects of both
Katrina and Rita, but I speak as mother, wife, and a person who
understands the pains of economic hardship.
A restrictive rule in a situation such as this will only limit the
effectiveness of this legislation. Hurricane Katrina has been a natural
disaster of unprecedented proportions. The effects of Katrina, now
compounded with the effects of hurricane Rita, have been difficult to
predict and even more difficult to prevent. Thousands of people are
displaced, hungry, and without hope. Authorities at every level of
government are virtually writing the book on how to respond to a
disaster of this proportion and scope. In my district alone, there are
15,000 displaced children who need homes, schooling, food, jobs, and
subsistence items. New information is coming in by the hour on damage
that was done to our infrastructure, the numbers of displaced people,
and the paltry resources available.
I applaud the Conferees for giving agencies such as ICE an
appropriation of $3.175 billion--which was a $216 million increase over
the FY05 level of $2.95 billion. Furthermore, of the $4.6 billion
allocated to TSA, $2.54 billion is allocated to cover passenger and
baggage screener workforce. The number of TSA screeners is capped at
45,000--which will constrain our efforts to compensate for the effects
of the two hurricanes. Within this account, privatized screening
operations are funded at $140 million. The conferees also extended
liability protection to airports with private and TSA screeners for
``any act of negligence, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing''
committed by a Federal or private screener--which will be a good
element.
Unfortunately, the underlying bill is not exactly on-point or up-to-
date vis-a-vis Hurricane Rita. Many of the problems that we face are
new, late breaking, and developing in front of our eyes. We need as
unrestrictive a rule as possible in order to best address the issues
contained with this legislation. In fact we have still not given full
attention to the value of growing and promoting citizen Corps--
established neighborhood groups that were established in the original
homeland security legislation that would help train neighborhoods in
securing their communities.
This measure is of critical importance for the constituents of my
district. We can do better.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________