Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3269-H3302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 836 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5441.

{time} 1545

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to present the fiscal year 2007
Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. The bill provides just over $32
billion in discretionary funds for the upcoming fiscal year, that is
$1.8 billion above the current year, providing ample resources to fund
the Department's operations in 2007.
After 3 years, the Department of Homeland Security has made enormous
progress, but much work remains. The past year has been challenging. We
have seen military-like incursions at the border, learned of potential
vulnerabilities within port security and witnessed a massive failure in
our Nation's preparedness and response during Hurricane Katrina. It has
not been an easy year.
I have watched the Department tackle these challenges, and have been
forthcoming in both my criticisms and praise, and they deserve both.
Now, in its fourth year of existence, DHS is still struggling to merge
its 22 legacy agencies.
Basic business systems are not yet established. And there is a
constant shuffling of responsibilities and positions. From one day to
the next, it is hard to determine who is in charge of what effort. On
top of the mundane job of simply managing a large bureaucracy of over
180,000 employees, the Department is often focused on managing the
crisis of the day. Part of this is necessary. Katrina's aftermath
certainly required the attention of DHS leadership.
But I do not think the Department should lose sight of its long range
goals and diverse legacy missions, to deal exclusively with the latest
crisis. Nor, do I think that we as a Congress can afford to be so
caught up in today's crisis that we fail to provide balance, stability
and aggressive oversight within the Department's operations.
The President's budget put a strong emphasis on two areas, borders
and immigration security, and nuclear detection. These are certainly
homeland security priorities which I support. But increases in these
areas came at the expense of everything else, resulting in reduced
funding for first responders, port security and legacy agencies such as
the Secret Service.
The bill before you shifts some of these resources and provides a
balance among all of the Homeland Security priorities. It gives the
Department the tools, assets and direction it needs to prepare our
Nation for both terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
Since September 11, we have provided $217.6 billion for homeland
security, including $116.9 billion for the Department itself. This does
not include emergency appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and
Wilma.
For the past 3 years, we have provided funds to get the Department up
and running. But this year marks a turning point for the Department. It
is 3 years old. It is already up and running. We now expect results. No
longer will we tolerate excuses and delays due to reorganizations,
personnel shortages and poor financial management. Those days are over.
We need to have confidence that this money is making a difference and
that as a Nation we are safer and better prepared.
The bill includes a number of initiatives designed to compel the
Department to develop strategies and milestones for performance. To
eliminate any ambiguity of Congressional intent, the bill fences funds
until certain actions are performed. In fact, a total of $1.3 billion
is withheld until we have strategic plans, expenditure plans, and
better financial data throughout the Department.
The bill also balances funding across all programs, not just a select
few. But there are some caveats. We give money to the Department, but
we also require results. For port security, cargo security and
container security, we include $4.185 billion, a significant sum of
money, but not without strings.
There are stringent performance requirements, such as doubling the
amount of cargo inspected, 100 percent screening of all cargo and the
establishment of minimum security standards for all cargo containers.
It also requires that DHS double the amount of cargo screened for
radiation. These requirements are in line with the recently considered
SAFE Port Act, which overwhelming passed this House on May 4.
For border security and immigration enforcement, the bill is also
generous. We provide $19.6 billion, including almost $4 billion for the
Secure Border Initiative. Again, these funds do not come without
strings. Strategic and expenditure plans must be submitted for this
effort. Unless the Department can show us exactly what we are buying,
we will not fund it. Since 1995, spending on border security has
quadrupled from $5.1 billion to over $17.9 billion.
And the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled from
5,000 to 12,319. However, during this same period, the number of
illegal immigrants has jumped from 5 million to an estimated 12 million
people. The policy of more money and no results is no longer in effect.
We will not fund programs with false expectations. The American
taxpayer deserves more. We learned many lessons, Mr. Chairman, from
Hurricane Katrina. The Department has taken a number of steps to
prepare for the start of the 2006 Hurricane season on June 1, including
improvements to communications, logistics management, victim
registration and debris removal.
However, much work remains. And we provide $493 million to build
FEMA's operational capabilities, including 200 new staff to improve
incident and logistics management, evacuations and debris removal.
The bill includes $3.2 billion for our first responders. This is in
addition to the $5.1 billion that is still in the pipeline waiting to
be spent, moneys from previous years. Here, too, we require results.
And we put pressure on DHS to measure progress in preparing our first
responders.
Since September 11, we have given the first responders, we have
provided $37.4 billion. The question is, are they better trained? Are
they better prepared? Are they better equipped? We do not know the
answer to that, but we should. The bill includes a provision requiring
DHS to develop a preparedness strategy and to measure the performance
of first responders.
The bill provides $6.4 billion for the Transportation Security
Administration and the air marshals, including $497 million for
explosive detection systems, and $55 million for air cargo security. It
also continues to cap the number of screeners at 45,000, ensuring that
TSA will not rely exclusively on people to secure aviation but rather
use smart technologies to screen for explosives and other contraband.
We must get out of the cycle of simply giving more money for people
when technology in many cases provides a better answer. The bill
includes $500 million for the domestic nuclear detection office. Much
work has been done in this area over the past year, and the office has
made significant progress in the areas of detection technologies and

[[Page H3270]]

coordinating Federal efforts. This work deserves our continued support.
Finally, I would like to point out that the bill includes $1.3
billion for the Secret Service. I continue to believe the
administration sometimes ignores the resource requirements of that
agency. Despite dramatic increases in their workload for both
protection and investigations, dollars have not been forthcoming.
This is a good example of where I think the administration is not
paying enough attention to legacy missions, because they are so focused
on bigger, more visible challenges.
This legislation, Mr. Chairman, supports our most critical Homeland
Security priorities, keeps the Department on track to produce results
and continues the committee's tradition of strict accountability. The
recommendations in this bill reflect a balance among programs and
operations, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
Mr. Chairman, this is the last year that my distinguished colleague,
Mr. Sabo, will be serving in the U.S. House. He has chosen to retire to
his home in Minnesota. I want to pay him the highest compliment that I
can. He has been an able soldier. He has been a good work mate on this
subcommittee. A good part of this bill is his handiwork. He is easy to
work with. He reminds me a lot of that old adage that still water runs
deep. He does not yell and scream. And yet he is extremely competent.
So I wish him well in his next life. I want him to know that we have
enjoyed working with him. He has done a great service for his country.
And we want to thank him for his distinguished service.
So, Mr. Sabo, thank you for being a great partner.

[[Page H3271]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.001

[[Page H3272]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.002

[[Page H3273]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.003

[[Page H3274]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.004

[[Page H3275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.005

[[Page H3276]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.006

[[Page H3277]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.007

[[Page H3278]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.008

[[Page H3279]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.009

[[Page H3280]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.010

[[Page H3281]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.011

[[Page H3282]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.012

[[Page H3283]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.013

[[Page H3284]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25MY06.014

[[Page H3285]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his kind comments. It has been
a privilege to work with you over these last 6 years; the first 2 years
in the well-established Transportation Committee, the last 4 years in
the brand new endeavor of Homeland Security, with the whole process of
building and trying to help a new agency get going.
I have found you a great person to work with. I have the utmost
respect for you. You are a real pro. You know what you are doing. And
so I have great respect and admiration for the work that you do.
I would much rather have had a different role than being ranking
member, but at the same time that I am expressing my gratitude to you,
I also spent 4 years with Mr. Wolf on the Transportation Committee, and
I found him also a very good person to work with, a person like you,
open to suggestions from the minority, and a real pro in handling the
transportation bill that I did with Mr. Wolf.
So despite my wishes that the roles would have been reversed, it has
been a real privilege and honor to work with you. Also, throughout that
time, we have had great staff to work with. On my side, Bev Pheto, from
our minority staff; Marge Duske from my personal staff; and Chris
Martin, who also has been with our committee, who has been great to
work with; Mr. Obey, the ranking member of the full committee, who I
have worked with closely; and on the majority staff, Michelle, who I
expect you will be talking about her future, who has done a great job;
and Stephanie, who I not only had a chance to work with on Homeland
Security but worked with in Transportation before that; and Ted; and
Jeff; and Ben; and Brett; and Kelly; and Will; and Meg; thank you to
all of the staff. It is an excellent professional staff that we can all
be proud of.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
comments, especially about the staff. We would not be here obviously
without the hard work that they have put into this bill. You and I are
just sort of front people for the real work that goes on behind the
scenes by staff.
So we do have, I think, the best staff in the business on both sides
of the aisle. I join you in complimenting the staff. You may notice
that all of the staff is wearing some form of purple in their clothing
at some point in time. And there is a reason for that.
Purple is the favorite color of Michelle Mrdeza, who as we all know
is retiring after this year from her labors. And so we are paying
tribute to Michelle with purple. We wish Michelle well in her next life
as well.

{time} 1600

She has rendered tremendous service to her country. In trying to
stand up this brand-new Department, the biggest reorganization in the
government at least since 1948, in standing up this Department it has
been real labor, toils and snares all along the way and they continue
until this today. But Michelle and the staff of the subcommittee on
both sides have just been marvelous in this labor of love of trying to
stand up this huge agency, that we owe them more than we can ever tell
them about. But that goes for the ranking member, too.
He has been a marvelous help-mate as we struggled along trying to
find our way through a thicket to try to stand up this brand-new
Department. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. SABO. I thank the chairman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Rogers on this homeland
security bill which is clearly better than the administration's budget
request.
The President's proposed new fees and unrealistic discretionary
budget cap left the Appropriations Committee with big holes to fill. As
a result there are difficult homeland security funding choices to make.
My concerns about our Nation's homeland security are not limited to
funding. As I have said before, I had serious doubts in 2002 about the
wisdom of creating a new Department of Homeland Security, and I voted
against the bill. When I took on the role of ranking member on the
subcommittee, I decided my job was to try and prove myself wrong. I'm
sorry to say that the DHS bureaucrat mess is worse than I first
imagined, and I still cannot say that my original judgment was wrong.
There is modest progress in some areas. However, time and again we
see failures of planning, leadership and management at DHS. Americans
are holding their breath as a new hurricane season approaches. And 8
months into the fiscal year, the States in the high-threat urban areas
are still waiting for DHS to release hundreds of millions of dollars in
2006 homeland grants. We regularly see broad pronouncement from DHS
without the proper detail or budgets to support them.
The new Secure Border Initiative is a perfect example. It appears
that the administration SBInet plan is to hire private industry to
think for us how to develop border security technology and systems and
then sell us the solutions to them.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Rogers on this homeland
security bill which is clearly better than the Administration's budget
request. The President's proposed new fees and an unrealistic
discretionary budget cap left the Appropriations Committee with big
holes to fill. As a result, there are difficult homeland security
funding choices to make.
My concerns about our nation's homeland security are not limited to
funding. As I have said before, I had serious doubts in 2002 about the
wisdom of creating a new Department of Homeland Security, and I voted
against it. When I took on the role of ranking member on the
Subcommittee, I decided that my job was to prove myself wrong. I'm
sorry to say that the DHS bureaucratic mess is worse than I first
imagined, and I still can't say that my original judgment was wrong.
There is modest progress in some areas. However, time and again, we
see failures of planning, leadership and management at DHS. Americans
are holding their breath as a new hurricane season approaches. And,
eight months into the fiscal year, the states and high-threat urban
areas are still waiting for DHS to release hundreds of millions of
dollars in '06 homeland grants.
We regularly see broad policy announcements from DHS without the
proper detail or budgets to support them. The new Secure Border
Initiative is a perfect example. It appears that the Administration's
SBInet ``plan'' is to hire private industry to think for us on how to
develop border security technology and systems, and then sell us the
solution they come up with.
Most recently, Mr. Obey and I asked GAO to look at how DHS is
handling personal information in its ADVISE program. We have long been
concerned about how the Department treats Americans' privacy and due
process rights. ADVISE appears to be a new variation on the highly
controversial Defense Department Total Information Awareness program,
that was supposed to be terminated in 2003.
Regarding funding levels in this bill, my biggest reservations are
about the fire grants, port and transit security and state training
grant programs. Some of these programs are funded at last year's level,
and some are below.
I am particularly concerned about fire grants, which is one of the
most successful programs that the Department administers. This bill
cuts fire grants by $109 million, or 17 percent, below 2006. Our
nation's firefighters have great needs that cannot be met at the
funding level in this bill. I will offer an amendment later to restore
fire grant and SAFER funding to slightly above the FY06 level.
We still have serious gaps in air cargo security. This bill makes no
real headway in closing them, and port security grant funding is also
lower than I would like to see.
This bill does not fund all of the additional border patrol agents
and detention beds called for in the President's February budget
request. Since his speech last week, we are still trying to understand
the new initiatives--and the costs--that the President proposes.
You can be sure, however, that the price tag for meaningful border
security and immigration services and enforcement will be very steep.
It will be far more than the roughly $19.4 billion in this bill (9
percent above 2006) that is attributed to border security and
immigration.
As an example, individuals in my district--and I suspect yours--have
waited more than two years for the federal government to run security
name checks to process their immigration paperwork. These people are
doing things legally. As far as I can tell, the funding the President
proposes in his new plan won't address this issue. I can only imagine
the size of the backlog that would be created by his plan or other
significant changes in immigration law.
I make these observations not to criticize the Chairman. I simply
want to clarify for

[[Page H3286]]

Members that even though this bill increases homeland security funding,
it does not get us where we need to be in protecting the nation.
Lastly, I am very concerned that--nearly 5 years after 9/11--the
federal government is still failing to secure the vast majority of
chemical facilities in this country. They are prime targets for a
catastrophic terrorist attack, and there is precious little being done
to protect many of them.
The administration acknowledges the chemical security dilemma we
face, but will not act without new legal authority to make and enforce
chemical security regulations. The Congress--for more than four years--
has failed to act. Competing legislation in the House and Senate
authorizing committees has gone nowhere. What are we waiting for?
I was very disappointed that the Rules Committee refused to protect
my chemical security language--Section 536--which was added to this
bill in the Appropriations Committee. These provisions would give DHS
the legal authority that Secretary Chertoff says he needs to regulate
U.S. chemical facilities that pose the greatest risk to Americans.
Congress addressed a small part of the chemical security problem in
2002. We enacted security requirements for chemical facilities on ports
under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and the Coast Guard is
doing a good job of enforcing them. Under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002,
the EPA also oversees security at the nation's drinking water
facilities. Section 536 would not re-regulate them.
The problem is that there are thousands of other chemical plants and
storage facilities without federal security standards or oversight. An
attack on one of them has the potential to kill or injure tens of
thousands of people. DHS has said that 20 percent of the 3,400 chemical
facilities it identifies as ``high-risk'' adhere to no security
guidelines. Yet, Congress appears content to leave security at these
facilities to the good conscience of their operators.
I urge my colleagues to refrain from making a point of order against
the chemical security provisions in this bill. The American people have
waited too long for Congress to take responsible action to prevent a
catastrophic attack on a chemical facility.
If the Congress produces chemical security legislation that the
President can sign into law this year, then the Section 536 would be
unnecessary. I suspect, however, that Congress will adjourn without
doing so. And then--without Section 536--where will we be? Will the
American people have to endure another year without chemical security
protections?
In closing, I will say that this is not a perfect bill. Given the
allocation provided, however, it is one that I will support.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the distinguished chairman of the
authorizing Committee on Homeland Security in the House.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Kentucky who has been a leader in strengthening the Department and
providing crucial oversight to its activities. I want to thank you and
Ranking Member Sabo for your hard work on this bill, and of course join
with you in commending Mr. Sabo in his many years of dedication to this
Chamber.
This bill provides the necessary resources for the Federal
Government's effort to protect the homeland. I rise to acknowledge a
number of legislative provisions that are included in the bill and fall
within the primary jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security.
I do not seek to challenge the vast majority of these authorizing
provisions, as I believe they are largely necessary to ensure the
Department continues to improve its effectiveness. However, I do want
to point out the strong jurisdictional interests of the Committee on
Homeland Security.
As you know, the Committee on Homeland Security is actively working
to advance much needed legislation specifically authorizing many of the
activities of the Department, particularly in the areas of border
security, cargo security, emergency management, and chemical site
security. The Committee on Homeland Security will also in the near
future advance a broad reauthorization bill for the Department.
A full list of my concerns is provided in a letter to the gentleman
from Kentucky, which will follow my remarks.
Since I became chairman last year, we have had an excellent working
relationship, and I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky's efforts to
include me and my staff as you develop the bill. In light of the
ongoing authorization activities of the Committee on Homeland Security,
I respectfully request your commitment to work together to ensure that
the legislative provisions in the homeland security appropriations bill
compliment and do not conflict with parallel authorizing legislation.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts to work with
our subcommittee and commend him for his leadership in the Committee on
Homeland Security. I also appreciate the opportunity to work with the
gentleman on legislative provisions contained in the homeland security
bill.
As this bill moves forward towards conference, I want to assure the
gentleman that I am committed to retaining the key oversight provisions
included in this bill. I also look forward to working with the
gentleman to ensure that measures consistent with the legislative
agenda of the Committee on Homeland Security, particularly in the areas
of border, immigration and port security, emergency preparedness and
chemical site security. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman for his commitment. And
on a personal note, I want to thank him for the extraordinary
cooperation he has given me during the 9 months I have been chairman of
the authorizing committee.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, May 25, 2006.
Hon. Harold Rogers,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rogers: The House of Representatives has
scheduled for consideration today, H.R. 5441, the Homeland
Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This
measure contains a number of legislative provisions that are
in violation of House Rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits
legislation within a general appropriation bill. These
provisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee
Homeland Security. While I want to make clear the Committee
on Homeland Security's strong jurisdictional interests in the
legislative provisions summarized below, I do not intend to
assert procedural objections to the vast majority of these
provisions during House consideration of the Homeland
Security Appropriations Bill.
As you know, the Committee on Homeland Security is actively
working to advance legislation specifically authorizing many
of the activities of the Department of Homeland Security,
particularly in the area of border security, cargo security,
emergency management and chemical site security. The
Committee on Homeland Security will also, in the near future,
advance a broad reauthorization bill for the Department. In
light of the ongoing authorization activities of the
Committee, I respectfully request your commitment to work
together to ensure that the Appropriations Bill complements,
and does not conflict with, parallel authorizing legislation.
The provisions of interest to the Committee on Homeland
Security are as follows:
Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 2,
Line 16-Page 3, Line 2); withholds $10,000,000 until the
Secretary of Homeland Security submits a comprehensive port,
container, and cargo security strategic plan to
Appropriations and Homeland Committees. This plan must
require screening of all inbound cargo, double the percentage
of inbound cargo currently inspected, set minimum standards
for security inbound cargo and includes the FY 2007
performance requirements for port, container, and cargo
security.
Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 3,
Lines 2-15); provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security
must submit a multi-year strategic plan for the Secure Border
Initiative that includes a comprehensive mission statement,
an identification of long-term goals, an explanation of how
long-term goals will be achieved, schedule and resource
requirements, an identification of annual performance goals
and how they link to long-term goals, an identification of
annual performance measures used to gauge effectiveness
towards goal achievement by goal and an identification of
major capital assets critical to program success.
Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 4,
Line 8-12); provides that $10,000,000 will be withheld until
the Office of Chief Financial Officer of the Department of
Homeland Security submits monthly budget execution report to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 4,
Line 25-Page 5, Line 4); provides that none of the funds in
this section may be used for US-VISIT or ACE.
Title II, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (Page 6, Line 12-Page 7, Line 14); withholds
$312,494,000 until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits
a plan for expenditures to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees that must

[[Page H3287]]

comply with the Department of Homeland Security and
procurement regulations, includes a certification by the
Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland
Security and is reviewed by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board and the Government
Accountability Office.
Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs
and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (page 8,
Line 17-Page 9, Line 3); notwithstanding any other provisions
of law, this section requires that no funds may be provided
for Customs and Border Patrol overtime, from any source, if
the funds exceed the $35,000 cap, except for specific
circumstances determined by Secretary of Homeland Security or
his designee.
Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs
and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (Page 9,
Line 6-10); requires the Border Patrol to relocate its
checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least once every seven
days.
Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs
and Border Protection, Automation Modernization account (Page
11, Line 8-Page 12, Line 9); withholds funds provided for the
Automated Commercial Environment until the Appropriations
Committee receives an expenditure plan on the program meeting
certain requirements and is reviewed by the Government
Accountability Office.
Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs
and Border Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction,
Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account (Page 13,
Lines 2-11); prohibits the transfer of any Customs and Border
Protection aircraft or equipment to any other Federal agency
without approval of the House Appropriations Committee.
Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs
and Border Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction,
Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account (Page 13
Lines 11-16); withholds $6.8 million until the House
Appropriations and Homeland Security Committees receive a
report on the April 25, 2006 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle mishap.
Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs
and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (Page
14, Line 24-Page 15, Line 5); waives other laws and states
that no funds may be provided for Customs and Border
Protection overtime, from any source, if the funds exceed the
$35,000 cap, except for specific circumstances determined by
the Secretary of Homeland Security or his designee.
Title II, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation
Security (Page 17, Line 1-11); restricts the Government share
of costs of projects to 75 percent for medium or large hub
airport and 90 percent for any other airport.
Title II, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation
Security Account (Page 17, Lines 11-20); provides that no
funding shall be provided except for items such as air cargo
inspectors, canines and screeners until a detailed a detailed
air security action plan that includes the criteria outlined
in the Bill is submitted to the House Appropriations and
Homeland Security Committees.
Title II, Transportation Security Administration,
Transportation Security Support Account (Page 18, Line 23-
Page 19, Line 6); withholds $5 million until the Department
of Homeland Security submits a plan for explosive detection
systems deployment and spending plan.
Title III, Under Secretary for Preparedness (Page 28, Lines
12-17); withholds $4.4 million until the Secretary of
Homeland Security submits the final National Preparedness
Goal to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Title III, (Page 28, Line 18-Page 31, Line 19); provides
that ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' grants
to State and local governments for terrorism prevention
activities shall be allocated as follows: applications for
formula-based grants and law enforcement terrorism prevention
grants; no less than 80 percent of any formula-based grant
and law enforcement terrorism prevention grant awarded to a
State shall be made available by the State to local
governments within 60 days after the receipt of the funds;
discretionary grants for port security shall be limited to
$200 million and distributed based on risks and threat;
discretionary grants for high-threat, high-density urban
areas shall be limited to $750 million; grants under this
section shall be made available to states within 45 of the
enactment of this act. States shall submit applications
within 90 days of the grant announcement; no less than 80
percent of any discretionary grant awarded to a State shall
be made available by the State to local governments within 60
days after the receipt of the funds. The Committee Report
also directs the Department to guarantee a 0.75 percent
``base'' to States under the State Homeland Security Grant
Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program,
thereby eliminating the Department's discretion under the USA
PATRIOT Act to provide that guarantee as a ``true minimum.''
Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security (Page 32, Line 22-Page 34, Line 1); requires that
the methodology for collecting fees under this section be
fair and equitable and that such fees should reflect the cost
of the collection of such fees.
Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security (Page 33, Line 18-Line 22); withholds $10 million
until the Department of Homeland Security releases the
National Infrastructure Protection Plan.
Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security (Page 33, Line 22-Page 34, Line 2); withholds $10
million until the Department of Homeland Security has
released its national security strategy for the chemical
sector report.
Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services,
Science and Technology, Management and Administration (Page
41, Lines 15-20); withholds $98 million until the Under
Secretary submits a detailed expenditure plan for fiscal year
2007 to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee.
Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services,
Science and Technology, Management and Administration (Page
42, Lines 3-9); withholds $400 million until the House
Appropriations Committee receives and approves a report
prepared by the Under Secretary that describes Science and
Technology's progress in areas detailed in the bill.
Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services
(Page 42, line 10-Page 43, line 3); provides $500,000,000 for
necessary expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office,
but withholds funds from the Sodium-Iodide Manufacturing
Program until DNDO demonstrates that the Advanced
Spectroscopic Portals will significantly speed commerce,
reduce costs of secondary inspection, or significantly
increase sensitivity over current radiation portal monitors.
Section 513 (Page 49, Line 17-Page 51, Line 6); withholds
funds for Secure Flight until the Secretary certifies that
Government Accountability Office has reported on ten CAPPS II
points outlined in Sec. 522(a) in P.L. 108-334.
Section 518 (Page 52, Line 14-17); directs the Secretary of
Homeland Security in consultation with industry stakeholders
to develop screening standards and protocols to increase the
use of explosive detection equipment to screen air cargo.
Section 519 (Page 52, Line 18-Page 53, Line 4); directs the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to use existing
explosive detection systems equipment to the greatest extent
practicable and to provide quarterly reports on amount of
cargo carried on passenger aircraft screened to the House
Appropriations Committee. Such reports must be submitted
within 45 days of the end of the quarter, each day the
reports are late, $100,000 of funding will be withheld from
TSA.
Section 520 (Page 53, Lines 5-10); directs that funds
cannot be used to create transportation worker ID cards that
do not utilize an existing government production facility.
Section 522 (Page 54, Lines 3-9); directs that no funds may
be used for anyone but the Department of Homeland Security
Privacy Officer to alter, direct or order changes be made,
delay or prohibit the transmission to Congress of any report
pursuant to paragraph 6 of such section.
Section 525 (Page 54, Line 24-Page 55, Line 19); requires
that Department of Homeland Security declare certain types of
information detailed in the bill to be releasable.
Section 526 (Page 55, Lines 20-23); authorizes the Working
Capital Fund.
Section 529 (Page 56, Line 23-Page 57, Line 14); requires
the Department of Homeland Security Chief Financial Officer
to submit a monthly budget execution report including the
criteria set forth in the bill. The report must be submitted
within 45 days of the close of each month, and must be
submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Section 531 (Page 60, line 21-Page 61, line 2); provides
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office with the authority to
distribute funding through grants, cooperative agreements,
and other transactions and contracts.
Section 532 provides that no funds may be used by U.S.
Customs and Border; Protection to prevent individuals
importing certain prescription drugs.
Section 536 (Page 62, Lines 1-17), requires the Department
of Homeland Security to issue security requirements for
chemical facilities that the Department deems highest risk
within six months of enactment of the Bill.
While I appreciate your efforts to offer meaningful
oversight on the Department of Homeland Security, the
Committee on Homeland Security continues to actively pursue
its authorizing and oversight responsibilities. I look
forward to working with you further on measures to improve
effectiveness of the Department. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter T. King,
Chairman.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the authorizing
committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding me time. I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman before he
leaves us. I believe this is your last effort, Mr. Sabo. You have been
a very, very good person to work with on the committee. I wish you
well. I am not sure what the future holds, but I know it is very
positive.
Mr. Chairman, in the 3 short years since the Department came into
existence, it has been in a constant state of transition and turmoil.
Chronically

[[Page H3288]]

understaffed at the border and in our airports, the Department has had
to execute its critical national security mission without the people
and resources it needs.
Time and again the dedicated men and women of the Department of
Homeland Security are asked to do more with less. There have been
numerous turnovers at the highest level in the Department. In a week
from today, the 2006 hurricane season will begin and FEMA is still not
fully staffed. The Department also has a significant number of
leadership vacancies, including the chief financial officer, the chief
privacy officer, the commissioner of customs of border protection, and
the Under Secretary of Science and Technology. There are so many
``actings'' at the Department that the agency might want to start
handing out Screen Actor Guild cards.
Seriously, it is no wonder that morale at the Department is
practically dead last among all Federal agencies. This bill funds the
Department at $33 billion, 5 percent over last year's funding measure.
I am glad that we were able to increase the budget without raising the
passenger ticket tax, but the level of resources provided is far short
of what is needed to make real progress in the war on terror and
partner effectively with State and local governments as well as the
private sector.
Grants and training programs are funded at $2.5 billion. That is just
2 percent over what was provided to our communities to train and equip
emergency responders last year. At this rate we are not even keeping up
with inflation.
This bill also does not fulfill the funding commitments made in the
9/11 act. It does not fund 2,000 more Border Patrol agents. It does not
fund 8,000 new detention beds. It does not fund 800 new immigration
investigators. No wonder the border, Mr. Chairman, is in crisis.
If we are not willing to fully invest in securing the border
permanently, what do we expect? The decision to send our already
overtaxed National Guard to the border is a Band-Aid solution to hide
the fact that we are failing the good men and women of the Border
Patrol, ICE and CBP by not giving them the resources and additional
support they need to do their job.
The bulk of my criticism is not for the appropriators. It is for the
administration. The parameters for this year's appropriations were
dangerously unrealistic. Mr. Obey attempted to correct this shortfall
and infuse another $3.5 billion into the Department. Had the money been
appropriated, the Department would be in better position to meet its
responsibilities to the American people.
The Department is in its toddler years, barely out of the terrible
twos. It is going to take a significant commitment by this Congress to
do the oversight and provide the support needed if the Department is to
ever grow into the Federal agency that Congress envisioned and the
American people deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I again want to pay tribute to Mr. Sabo for guiding us
during our terrible twos and threes in this Department. We wish him
well.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and commend him
for demanding from the Department of Homeland Security an in-depth
examination of what will work and how we will implement the newest plan
to protect our border. But new plan needs to include, as the chairman
talked about, a tactical operation, the tactical ability to stretch the
border. In other words, we need to get on offense and not take such a
passive approach to our issues on the border. We need to be careful
that we are not just sitting in a green and white Border Patrol pickup
truck, sitting on the border on the night shift, hoping that we picked
the right spot, and thinking we will interdict illegals using that kind
of an approach.
Mr. Chairman, I grew up in Arizona and my ranch sits within a few
miles of the border. On many occasions I have had my fences cut, and I
have had many people flow through my ranch headed north. Over the last
18 months, my staff and I have and our team has developed a
comprehensive approach to border security called the Red Zone Defense.
We currently have 8 aerostat balloons on the border using look-down
radar peering into Mexico, stopping the flood of airplanes flowing into
America. We need to add sensors that can peer across the line, see them
coming, see where they are staging before they get to the border in
order to shift the defense, shift the limited amount of manpower we
have so we can interdict in a pro-active approach.
Many of my colleagues have embraced this plan. The chairman of the
authorization committee, Mr. King of New York, included it in the
authorization bill. And it needs to be part of the financial strategy
that is developed by DHS in order to gain operational control of our
borders.
Coming from Arizona and living on the border, growing up on the
border, we deal with it day in and day out. I ask that DHS, as it
begins to move forward in responding to the chairman and the ranking
member's demand for a comprehensive plan, look at pro-active
intelligence that can cue our limited manpower and can see the illegals
coming before they cross the border. We need to have it included in the
plan.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Cuellar) for the purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity and for
crafting a good bill that supports the critical missions of the
Department of Homeland Security. Within this bill you have done a great
job of increasing the amount of Customs and Border Protection and
Immigration Customs Enforcement officers and addressing the critical
needs along the border.
I am a big supporter that in order to protect the border we have got
to start off with optimum staffing levels of law enforcement agencies
charged with protecting our borders. This is certainly true in my
hometown of Laredo on the border. Your bill goes a long way towards
addressing the staffing needs of CBP and ICE in Laredo as well as along
our borders through substantive funding increases and extensive
planning requirements.
But there is certainly more work to be done, and I hope to be able to
work with you, Mr. Chairman, and with your committee on addressing the
staffing needs on these agencies, especially along the border in
Laredo.
Secondly, there is a serious condition along my area of the border
caused by carrizo cane. This invasive plant grows wildly along the
banks of the Rio Grande and conceals many illegal activities and
illegal crossings.

{time} 1615

This is why the Riverbend Project in Laredo is so important. I am
very appreciative of your supportive report language that reflects my
proposed ideas about making the border more secure, and I hope to be
able to continue to work with you and the ranking member in the
committee to address this problem
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind words of
the gentleman from Texas, and I share his concerns and am committed to
improving our border security and immigration enforcement programs. I
know the needs of Laredo are great, but I also know that if we do not
address the issue of border security comprehensively, we will continue
to throw money at a problem without making measurable gains.
As I have said many times, if our approach is only to build a 20-foot
fence, all we end up doing is increasing the demand for 21-foot
ladders. We have to have a plan for addressing this very complex and
challenging issue.
I will continue to work with the gentleman on his concerns and push
the department to plan its work and work its plan.
Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the best method
to secure our borders is through more law enforcement on the ground;
more technology, which is cameras, sensors and air surveillance; and
more detention beds.
Again, this bill takes huge strides to address these needs.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time.

[[Page H3289]]

And thank you to Mr. Sabo for the great work you have been doing.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for purposes of a colloquy with the
chairman.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking
member.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging Chairman Rogers in a
colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work on this bill. As the ranking
member of the Economic Security, Infrastructure and Cybersecurity
Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, I have been working on
port security issues for many years, and I was extensively involved in
moving the SAFE Port Act that was recently overwhelmingly passed in
this House in a very bipartisan manner. One of the topics that we spent
a lot of time perfecting in the SAFE Port Act was the authorization of
the C-TPAT program.
The reason for this emphasis was that C-TPAT has the potential to be
a very effective security program but only if all C-TPAT members are
validated to be trustworthy and have adequate supply chain security
measures in place. In order to help achieve 100 percent validation, I
have been a vocal supporter of third party validations provided the
proper controls are in place. The SAFE Port Act requires many
safeguards and controls in any third party validation program,
including requiring C-TPAT members to contract with third party
validators directly and to pay for those validation costs.
So, Mr. Chairman, since both your bill and the SAFE Port Act require
100 percent validations of all C-TPAT participants, I want to clarify
that the language regarding third party validators contained within
your report will not contradict all of the work of the requirements and
the controls that we have put into the SAFE Port Act.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the language in the Homeland
Security Appropriations report is intended to support, not change or
contradict, the SAFE Port Act's requirements and controls pertaining to
third party validators. I share my colleague's concern that C-TPAT is
only as good as its participants are credible. We must ensure that all
C-TPAT members are validated to have a program that provides real
security. That is why our bill aligns with the SAFE Port Act by
requiring the validation of all certified participants.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for that clarification and for your strong support for improving
the C-TPAT program.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me take my 1 minute to
thank Mr. Sabo for his great leadership in these very difficult times
and to thank him personally for guiding this legislation, along with
the chairman. I believe that they attempted to work with what was given
to them, of course, suffering from having less than the $200 million
needed to fulfill all of the needs of this legislation.
Finally, I would say that I hope someday that we will pass in
appropriations what the 9/11 Commission asked us to do which is to
fully fund our border patrol agents with equipment, with power boats,
with goggles, and I am grateful for Senator Kerry, who passed that
amendment on the Senate side, as we move toward immigration reform,
both border security and comprehensive immigration reform.
Again, I thank Chairman Rogers and I thank Ranking Member Sabo for
his continued great service and the great work he has done on this
legislation. We will certainly miss him, and thank you again.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very hardworking
member of our subcommittee.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for the
time, and Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the chairman on another
great job, very difficult year allocation-wise and everything else and
all the hearings. I think it has been extremely informative in keeping
the Department's feet to the fire. I think it is extraordinarily
important.
I also want to commend my neighbor to the north up in Minnesota, Mr.
Sabo, and you will be sorely missed next year, that is for sure, and
thank you for your great service.
If you notice, I have a purple tie on. I did not get the memo, but
Michelle will be missed very much next year, and thank you for the job
you have done.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and I
applaud the leadership and the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking
Member Sabo in bringing this bill to the floor.
I would like to begin by saying that the budget resolution has
created inadequacies in this bill from the start. Chairman Rogers and
Ranking Member Sabo have done a fine job of distributing the scarce
funding that is available. They have been able to accomplish this
difficult task despite the OMB's use of a proposed new aviation
security fee, which was a budgetary gimmick that the Administration
knew this Congress would not support and probably did not even support
itself.
This fee was yet another attempt by the Administration to fool the
American people into thinking that we can pass out money to the wealthy
while sinking hundreds of billions into the quagmire in Iraq, and that
none of it will hurt. But again, I want to emphasize that Chairman
Rogers and Mr. Sabo are not at fault here.
In fact, I congratulate them for being able to restore much of the
funding in this bill for our states and localities, which have always
been on the front lines of our battles against terrorism. Mr. Speaker,
I understand we have a problem in this government with short attention
spans, but it is outrageous to me that not even half a decade after
Sept. 11, the Administration proposed to cut state and local assistance
by over 20 percent. It completely eliminated the SAFER program, which
helps our struggling local fire departments fulfill ever increasing
homeland security missions.
Just because we haven't needed our first responders on the scale of
Sept. 11 in a while, doesn't mean that the needs are not there. We
cannot afford to wait until a tragedy hits to realize that we did not
do enough for them.
I am glad that this bill recognizes this reality by partly restoring
the cuts that the Administration made to the grant programs such as
Metropolitan Medical Response System, Firefighter grants, and Emergency
Management Performance Grants. I know that my own City of New York is
making good use of all these grants, including those provided through
the High Threat Urban Areas program, and that they are doing so
expeditiously within the accounting requirements of the Department.
I do have some concerns about the requirement that part of this
funding go toward emergency medical services, because I believe our
states and localities should be able to distribute all the funding to
where it is needed most. But I hope to work with the Chairman and the
Ranking member on these concerns in Conference.
In a related account, the bill also restores funding for the Urban
Search and Rescue teams that were so crucial to not only our country's
response to 9/11, but the devastation caused by last year's hurricanes
as well. That is a much-needed restoration.
Beyond helping our state and municipalities, I would also like to
express my support for the attention that Chairman Rogers and Ranking
Member Sabo have paid to balancing new demands on the Department with
its ongoing missions. These critical missions, such as stopping the
flow of illegal drugs and approving visas, have not gone away since 9/
11 or since Fox News started sowing paranoia about our southern border.
This bill properly recognizes this reality.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the bill does a good job
within the amount provided for its top line. I would have wished to see
more funding provided for all functions across the department,
especially for assistance to our first responders. We cannot continue
to move the baseline lower and lower year after year, and expect the
Department, our states, and our cities to do more with less.
Until the Budget Committee passes a realistic budget resolution,
however, we must play the cards that we are dealt, and this bill does a
good job of that. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5441, the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2007. This bill will provide valuable homeland security dollars to
communities and infrastructure in our country.

[[Page H3290]]

I'm particularly pleased about one provision included in this bill.
It will prevent U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from seizing
the property of Americans. Believe it or not, this is being done today.
For years, individuals have been allowed to purchase prescription
drugs for personal use from Canada and other foreign countries. Last
November, without notification, CBP began to seize medicine that
Americans had bought from Canadian mail-order pharmacies. We now know
that between November 2005 and February 2006 almost 13,000 packages of
drugs were seized.
Preventing these life-saving drugs from getting to their intended
destination puts Americans' health at risk. Many seniors on fixed
incomes lost hundreds of dollars worth of drugs when they were seized.
That may not seem like much to a pharmaceutical executive, but this is
a lot of money to someone on a fixed income.
Section 532 of H.R. 5441 states that ``None of the funds made
available in this Act for United States Customs and Border Protection
may be used to prevent an individual not in the business of importing a
prescription drug . . . from importing a prescription drug . . .'' This
will put a stop to our own government confiscating the medicine on
which its citizens depend. I urge passage of this bill. We should
insist that this provision remain in the final bill that the House
receives from the Conference Committee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
5441, the Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
I want to commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for their
work on this legislation. They have done an excellent job of
recognizing where this Department succeeds and where it doesn't.
Integrating the 22 separate agencies into one responsive, functioning
body is never easy, but the Department has had four years to do so.
This legislation recognizes that Congress needs to take a greater role
in overseeing this integration.
I support the approach Chairman Rogers has taken in this legislation
with requiring DHS to be more accountable to Congress on how it is
allocating funds and setting policies to affectively protect our
nation's citizens. For too long, money has been sitting unexpended or
allocated without a clear purpose. Hurricane Katrina, taught us that we
still have far to go in achieving an agile, organized and responsive
Homeland Security Department.
Last year, this Committee took the first important steps towards
ensuring Homeland Security Grants to states were allocated based on
risk. Much more remains to be done in this area, but to the credit of
the Chairman he has taken action to begin moving in this direction
while authorizing legislation is still pending.
This year, the Committee has produced legislation providing $3.2
billion for first responders--this is in addition to the $5.1 billion
still unexpended. The committee includes requirements that DHS provide
reports to the Committee on how it is ensuring that the $34.7 billion
provided to first responders to develop a preparedness strategy and to
measure the performance of first responders.
Additionally, $4.2 billion is appropriated for port, cargo, and
container security. This legislation sets strict requirements for
operations at those ports, including doubling the amount of cargo
inspected; requiring 100 percent screening of all cargo for radiation;
and the establishing of security standards for all cargo containers.
We in the New Jersey and New York area have a keen understanding of
how important it is to make sure that we secure such critical
infrastructure. New Jersey is home to the largest and busiest seaports
on the Eastern Seaboard. The Port of New York and New Jersey,
positioned between New York City and Newark Liberty International
Airport, is key to our nation's economy and security.
Handling more than $100 billion in cargo a year and employing nearly
230,000 area residents, the port is the East Coast's hub in the global
supply chain. This port is the most concentrated and affluent consumer
market in the world, with immediate access to the most comprehensive
interstate highway and rail networks in the nation.

Mr. Chairman, this is a thoughtful piece of legislation that not only
provides funding for Homeland Security activities, but also holds the
Department of Homeland Security accountable for how those activities
are executed.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 5441

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, for the Department of Homeland
Security and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive
management of the Department of Homeland Security, as
authorized by law, $95,884,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$40,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided further, That of the funds provided under
this heading, $10,000,000 shall not be available for
obligation until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits a
comprehensive port, container, and cargo security strategic
plan to the Committee on Appropriations and Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that
requires screening all inbound cargo, doubles the percentage
of inbound cargo currently inspected, sets minimum standards
for securing inbound cargo, and includes the fiscal year 2007
performance requirements for port, container, and cargo
security as specified in the report accompanying this Act:
Provided further, That the Secretary is directed to submit
the Secure Border Initiative multi-year strategic plan to the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives no later than
November 1, 2006 that includes: a comprehensive mission
statement; an identification of long-term goals; an
explanation of how long-term goals will be achieved; schedule
and resource requirements for goal achievement; an
identification of annual performance goals and how they link
to long-term goals; an identification of annual performance
measures used to gauge effectiveness towards goal achievement
by goal; and an identification of major capital assets
critical to program success.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo:
In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management'', after the aggregate
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$3,000,000)''.
In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of the Under
Secretary for Management'', after the aggregate dollar
amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``Office of Grants
and Training--firefighter assistance grants''--
(1) after the first dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $111,000,000)'';
(2) after the second dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $41,000,000)''; and
(3) after the third dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $70,000,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``Federal Emergency
Management Agency--disaster relief'', after the aggregate
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by
$14,000,000)''.
In title IV, in the item relating to ``Science and
Technology--research, development, acquisition and
operations'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $107,000,000)''.

Mr. SABO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself,
Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Andrews, Mrs.
Jones of Ohio, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Bradley of New
Hampshire.
This amendment increases by $111 million funding for the fire grant
and SAFER programs, bringing appropriations to these programs to
slightly above the 2006 level.
Fire and SAFER grants funding in the bill is currently $109 million,
or 17 percent below 2006. The bill funds the regular grant program at
$500 million, $40 million below 2006, and the SAFER program is funded
at $50 million in the bill, which is $69 million below the 2006 funding
level.
My amendment would eliminate these fire grant cuts. The amendment

[[Page H3291]]

is offset with reductions in the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management, some from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management,
and some from the funding for the Science and Technology Directorate.
The funds from the Science and Technology are from $246 million in
unobligated funding that is carried into 2006, and it is likely a large
portion will carry into 2007, which is why I think the 2007 funding can
be reduced.
Mr. Chairman, it is a good amendment and I urge its adoption.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sabo-
Sweeney amendment and would urge its adoption.
Let me just say this. This amendment restores funding that I think is
key and essential. First responders are our frontline defense in
homeland security, critically important in so many ways for rural,
urban and suburban communities.
I know, for example, as a New Yorker that, on preparedness issues,
both the SAFER Act and the firefighter grant dollars have been
essential towards us prospectively and proactively preparing folks on
the ground to really meet the needs of the community and really meet
the needs of the Nation and making us prepared.
So I could not urge my colleagues more strongly to be supportive of
this amendment and would ask that it be adopted.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an awfully
good case. The firefighters, of course, are extremely important in our
Nation's efforts to defend itself, and this funding is vital. The
gentleman and all the gentlemen make a good point, and I am prepared to
accept the amendment. I would hope that we could conserve some time by
doing that, but I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I also should point
out that the chairman has worked very hard with all of us, both last
year and this year, to make this a reality.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I ask unanimous consent to include my statement in the Record in
support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I rise in strong support the Sabo/Hoyer/Weldon/
Tubbs Jones amendment. This amendment restores $41 million dollars to
the Assistance to Firefighter Grant (AFG) Program and funds the
Staffing for Adequate Firefighters and Emergency Response (SAFER)
program at $70 million, which was zeroed out of the FY07 budget.
Adopting this amendment sends a clear message to our first responders
that we appreciate the work that they do in serving emergency needs of
our communities and nation.
The AFG program awards grants directly to state fire departments to
enhance their ability to protect the health and safety of the public
and firefighting personnel, particularly with respect to fire and fire-
related hazards.
In the State of Ohio, 251 fire departments received over $27 million
during the 2005 fiscal year.
The AFG program effectively meets the needs of firefighters around
the country. It is especially necessary in the wake of 9/11 and
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, as firefighters are our first line of
defense when dealing with national disasters.
The SAFER program provides much-needed funding for career and
volunteer fire departments across America to hire new firefighters and
recruit and retain volunteer firefighters. This program is critical to
the thousands of fire stations across the country that are currently
operating short of staff.
The SAFER program allows fire departments throughout the country to
apply for federal grants to hire and pay new firefighters for five
years. In addition, grants have been awarded to state and local
organizations to recruit and retain volunteer firefighters.
In March, I along with several of my Ohio Colleagues sent a letter to
the Budget Committee as well as the Homeland Security Appropriations
Committee to express our opposition to the Presidents Budget which cut
the Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program by over 50% and eliminated
funding for the SAFER program. In addition, I singed onto a letter with
my colleague, Mr. Hoyer to express my support for additional funding
for these programs.
I am happy to see that the Committee has restored some of the funding
to the AFG Program, but I believe more can be done.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the challenges and budgetary constraints
that Congress is faced with. However, cutting programs that assist
first responders at a time when homeland security is vital should be
reconsidered.
I thank my colleagues Mr. Olav Sabo, Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Weldon for
their work on this issue. I strongly urge you to restore funding to the
AFG and SAFER Grant Programs through the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I ask unanimous consent to enter my statement into the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Rogers
and Ranking Member Sabo for all the hard work they have put into
bringing this bill to the floor.
Homeland Security is a relatively new discipline for this body and in
a short amount of time my friends from Kentucky and Minnesota have
proven to be experts in this field.
Likewise, I want to publicly acknowledge Congressman Weldon,
Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Andrews for the leadership they have
displayed in enhancing our nation's security.
This amendment is another example of all our work to increase our
emergency preparedness and response capabilities--and I ask all Members
for their support.

Firefighter Challenges

10,000 fire engines are at least 30 years old. 27,000 fire stations
in the country have no back-up power; two-fifths of all departments
lack internet access.
The majority of portable radios that firefighters use are not water
resistant.
Currently two-thirds of all fire departments throughout America
operate with inadequate staffing.
In communities of at least 50,000 people, 38 percent of firefighters
are regularly part of a response that is not sufficient to safely
respond to a structure fire because of a lack of staffing. This is
unconscionable.

The Amendment

This amendment helps to tackle these problems. It provides an
additional $111 million for Firefighter grants. Of this money, $41
million will go to the base Firefighter Grant Program and $70 million
will go to the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response
(SAFER) program.
This additional funding is $2 million above the FY06 level for these
programs.
Fire Grants provide money directly to local departments for
equipment, training, and safety programs and have been an enormous
boost to first responder readiness since its inception.
Likewise, the SAFER Act provides annual grants for the purpose of
hiring, recruiting and retaining career and volunteer firefighters.
To be sure, Congress has made great strides to provide assistance for
our firefighters-- but still more needs to be done.
There's a reason the FIRE Grant program had 20,300 applications
containing close to $3 billion in requested assistance from departments
across the country this year.
And at a time when local jurisdictions are facing tough budget
decisions and departments all across the country are laying off
firefighters, this amendment couldn't come at a better time.
I implore support from my colleagues.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressmen Martin Sabo and
Curt Weldon for their leadership not only on this amendment, but also
on so many issues of importance to our nation's fire service.
I also want to express my sincere appreciation to chairman Rogers for
his support of our first responders and his assistance in bringing this
important amendment to the floor.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the contributions
that Bill Pascrell has made to our nation's firefighters, notably his
authoring of the original legislation to establish the assistance to
the firefighters grant program.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides much-needed increases to both
the fire grant and safer programs, and it moves us closer to fulfilling
our obligation to ensure that our nation's firefighters have the
resources necessary to guarantee their own safety--and to allow them to
better serve each of our communities.
This amendment brings the funding in the bill to $651 million--$541
million for fire grants and $110 million for safer.
This is $357.6 million above the level requested by the president,
and is a reflection of

[[Page H3292]]

congress's commitment to ensuring that our fire departments are
properly staffed, trained and equipped.
However, these amounts are still well below the authorized levels,
and far from meeting the needs of the fire service.
Thus, we must continue to work to increase the funding levels for
each of these programs--this year and in the future.
The fire grant program was established by congress in 2000 to meet
the basic equipment, training and firefighter safety requirements of
America's fire service, and to bring all fire departments to a baseline
of readiness to respond to all hazards.
The fire grant program has been a tremendous success, and congress
has provided more than $3.5 billion for infrared cameras, HAZMAT
detection devices, modern breathing apparatuses, improved training and
physical fitness programs, new turnout gear, fire trucks, and
interoperable communications equipment, to name but a few items.
The simple fact is that the equipment and training provided by these
grants have saved the lives of firefighters and average citizens in
communities across America, and I am proud to have played a role in
establishing and funding this program.
The safer program--authorized three years ago and funded for--is a
vital complement to the fire grant program because insufficient
staffing, defined by the national fire protection association as fewer
than four firefighters per apparatus, is a very real problem for far
too many of the nation's career and volunteer fire departments.
Responding with fewer than four firefighters per apparatus prevents
the first responder unit from complying with OSHA's ``2-in/2-Out''
standard for safe fire ground operation, and adds unnecessary risk to
the already dangerous job of fire suppression.
NFPA estimates that an additional 75,000 firefighters are required
across the country, and the additional funding we provide today will
help move us closer to that goal.
Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to provide our firefighters with
the necessary resources to perform their jobs as safely and effectively
as possible.
With the adoption of this amendment, and our continued support of the
fire grant and safer programs, we fulfill this obligation made by
firefighters across our nation.
Again, I thank Chairman Rogers for accepting this amendment, and for
his leadership and continued support of the nation's firefighters.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
On page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $500,000)''.
On page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment funds FEMA to conduct a
comprehensive study of the increase in demand for FEMA's emergency
response and disaster relief services as a result of weather-related
disasters associated with global warming during the next 5, 10 and 20
years. The assessment will include an analysis of the budgetary
material and manpower implications of meeting such increased demand for
FEMA services.
Now, we have been warned that we should expect to see more extreme
weather like the severe rainstorms and snowstorms that come in El Nino
season. We have been warned that we will see stronger hurricanes and
hurricanes with more total rainfall. Some say we should expect more
frequent hurricanes. We have been warned to expect heat waves. We have
been told to expect melting glaciers, rising sea levels swallowing low-
lying land in places like Bangladesh, Florida, the gulf coast and
Manhattan.
We have been warned that rising temperatures will force infectious
diseases to move north or upwards in elevation to expose previously
unexposed and therefore defenseless populations.
We have been warned that droughts will intensify and lengthen,
straining already strained water supplies and bringing crop failures,
droughts and also place those areas at greaser risk for wildfires.
These warnings come from the most respected, most credible, most
well-studied scientists this world has to offer. It turns out they have
been right. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15
years. We have had two consecutive record-breaking hurricane seasons,
and all signs point to another one this year.

{time} 1630

The polar ice cap is melting. Greenland's ice cap is melting.
Permafrost in Alaska is thawing, causing homes to crumble. Residents of
low-lying islands, like Tuvalu have applied for entry into other
countries as climate refugees and have been denied. West Nile virus
from Africa has taken a toehold in the U.S. The European heat wave of
2003 killed over 15,000 people. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere are at record levels. Scientists say these levels may not
have occurred in the last 400,000 years.
These effects are directly in line with the warnings we have received
from the scientific community. Even though it is difficult to attribute
all of these effects, and several I haven't even mentioned, directly to
climate change, some have been able to.
A recent article in Nature blames half of the risk associated with
the European heat wave on human-induced warming. The World Health
Organization has estimated that 150,000 deaths every year can be
attributed to climate change.
Hurricane Katrina gave us another grim warning, telling us not only
what we should expect but showing us what happens if we are not
prepared. Katrina showed us that when disasters hit, the most
vulnerable among us become even more vulnerable because they lack the
resources and the access to cope. This was made clear as image after
image of those who were hit the hardest were people of modest means and
people of color.
In fact, during the Chicago heat wave of 1995, African Americans were
twice as likely to die as whites. The elderly, many of whom could not
afford air conditioning, made up most of the victims.
Katrina showed us that disasters are expensive. We are on track to
spend at least $80 billion in supplemental spending alone. The private
sector is increasingly concerned as well. Insurance companies, whose
very existence relies on their predictive abilities, have seen enough
to make them drop certain coverage and conduct campaigns to try to
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. And reinsurance companies in
particular have taken a leadership role in promoting action on climate
change out of enlightened self-interest.
Hurricane Katrina showed us that an unprepared FEMA costs time,
money, and lives. We cannot merely look for ways in which FEMA failed
to do its job in the gulf coast. We have to allow FEMA to take into
account the realities of the challenges that await them.
At the moment, we can still choose which policy options we want to
exercise. We can deal with the effects of climate change in one of two
ways: we can acknowledge the extraordinary challenges before us and
prepare for them, voluntarily and aggressively, but steadily,
predictably, and controllably; or we can continue to create policies as
if there is no problem and wait for the changes to control our pace of
adaptation. The choice is ours.
Let FEMA prepare for the task ahead. Vote ``yes'' on the Kucinich
amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns about directing FEMA to predict
over the next 20 years the effects of global warming on disasters and
on FEMA's disaster relief services. FEMA's efforts should be focused on
improving their capabilities to coordinate the Federal response to
major domestic disasters and emergencies of all types.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, neither the
Department nor FEMA has the personnel nor the expertise to conduct such
a study. Global warming is not a homeland security priority, and we
should not expect FEMA to take on that tremendous responsibility.
So I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which
would provide funding for FEMA to conduct a comprehensive study of its
emergency response and disaster relief services as a result of weather-
related disasters associated with global warming.
There is no doubt in my mind that global warming is happening and
that man is contributing to it. Now, it is our responsibility to work
to mitigate the impacts of potentially catastrophic climate change.

[[Page H3293]]

2005 is currently tied with 1998 for the warmest year on record.
However, the warmth in 2005 is remarkable because, in contrast to 1998,
it was not boosted by El Nino. And since 1990, we've had the 10 hottest
years on record.
Hurricanes are getting stronger, heat waves are hitting harder and
more often, and the polar ice cap and Greenland's ice are melting.
Several weeks ago, the Northeast saw some of the worst flooding in 70
years, and the strength of Hurricane Katrina created a tragedy of
Biblical proportions. These examples of what climate change can do tell
us we must act now before another disaster hits.
We need to address climate change with concerted action and with
bipartisan dialogue, regional cooperation and an alliance between
industry and environmentalists.
The threat from global warming is very real, and we must act now to
combat potentially catastrophic climate change. We cannot leave this
legacy to our children and grandchildren. We simply will not have a
world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to this paragraph?
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to start by commending the chairman
for his work on this bill, and I rise today to support the Sabo
amendment. Because the debate moved along so quickly, I wasn't able to
enter my statement into the Record, but this vital amendment would
increase funding for our Nation's firefighters by over $111 million
dollars above the base bill. It is a very important amendment.
Every day in New Hampshire professional firefighters are responding
to emergencies and saving lives. Two weeks ago, over 12 inches of rain
in my State fell in between 36 and 48 hours, flooding much of New
Hampshire. It was professional firefighters, volunteer firefighters,
and other first responders that were on the front lines saving lives in
New Hampshire, making sure that people were safe and were able to
return to their homes.
That is why this amendment is so important to the firefighters in my
State, and I thank the chairman for allowing me to strike the last word
and entering this supporting statement in the Record.
I rise today in support of the Sabo amendment, which I am a cosponsor
of. This vital amendment would increase funding for our Nation's
firefighters by $111 million over the base bill, and in particular add
$70 million for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response
(SAFER) Act.
Every day in New Hampshire, professional firefighters are responding
to emergencies and saving lives, but they are doing so while
understaffed. National standards call for 4 to 5 firefighters to
respond to emergencies on a fire engine or ladder truck, yet in my
district many times as few as 2 respond on a piece of fire apparatus.
This amendment will help give departments the resources to hire
additional firefighters through a grant program. This will help
firefighters across our Nation better protect residents.
Two weekends ago over 12 inches of rain fell in 36 to 48 hours
flooding much of New Hampshire. During this disaster, the Professional
Firefighters of New Hampshire, the volunteer firefighters, police and
National Guard troops responded immediately, effectively and
courageously. In Londonderry, the firefighters rescued a young boy from
the surging flood waters, saving his life, while risking their own. In
Milton, Rochester, and Somersworth fire chiefs responsible for managing
dams on the Salmon Falls River did so in such a way so that several
thousand residents were able to safely evacuate without any loss of
life. In Dover, the work of the fire department saved a bridge and
retaining walls in the center of the city, that had they failed, could
have severely damaged a converted mill building in which 5,000 people
work. These are just several examples of the heroism that all of New
Hampshire's professional firefighters and other first responders
displayed during a very trying time for my state. I applaud their
heroism.
In every state firefighters protect us every day. It is our
responsibility to increase funding for the SAFER ACT by $70 million to
better provide the resources firefighters need to continue to do their
jobs safely and effectively.
I urge the adoption of this amendment, and praise Mr. Sabo and Mr.
Weldon for bringing this to the floor for a vote.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND
OPERATIONS--Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management'', after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000) (reduced by $500,000)''.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on a simple,
commonsense idea: it is easier to avoid an iceberg if you see the
iceberg coming.
We didn't see the UAE ports deal coming. We didn't see the Chinese
effort to acquire UNOCAL coming. We didn't see the Bahamas nuclear
security outsourcing contract coming. These business deals all raise
serious homeland security concerns, but the bigger homeland security
issue may be free trade agreements.
Trade agreements open our markets to be sure, as they should, but
they also open our ports, our infrastructure, and our transportation
lines. The United States Trade Representative recently concluded free
trade agreements with Peru and with Colombia. Peru is home to two
groups listed by the State Department as foreign terrorist
organizations. Colombia is home to three groups listed by the State
Department as foreign terrorist organizations. Yet U.S. law does not
require any systematic review of security issues raised by these or any
other free trade agreements.
It doesn't have to be that way. We need not simply vote for a trade
agreement and then keep our fingers crossed hoping that there are no
security concerns around it or attached to it. My amendment, the Trade
Related American National Security Enhancement and Accountability
Amendment, offers a responsible alternative. It simply reduces the
Department of Homeland Security Management and Operations funding by
$500,000 then increases it by the same amount.
The intent is to earmark these funds for the Department of Homeland
Security to, one, coordinate with the Justice Department and the State
Department on a security review of the Peru free trade agreement and
the Colombia free trade agreement; second, to analyze and report to
Congress on any security issues raised by these agreements.
This amendment would in no way delay the implementation of either
free trade agreement, but it would give Congress a look at the security
issues raised by these agreements.
If you believe, as I do, that avoiding the iceberg is easier if you
see it coming, please join me in supporting this commonsense reform.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
I understand the gentleman's concern, but would point out that such
determinations are the work of the U.S. Trade Representative. This
amendment would have more value if considered in the context of a bill
that authorizes or funds the U.S. Trade Representative or the
Department of State. As these activities are outside the jurisdiction
of the Department of Homeland Security, that would require a new
authorization.
Finally, the Department is still focusing on its primary
responsibilities of protecting the homeland and has little expertise in
making determinations about liability or trade activities.
For those reasons, I urge Members to vote against the amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
rise in support of the Brown amendment.
The Brown amendment does something that I think is really essential
in that it links homeland security to free trade agreements. We cannot
ignore the broad effects of our trade agreements on our national
security, and that is what Mr. Brown is seeking to demonstrate here.

[[Page H3294]]

It seems we have a lack of awareness in this Chamber about not only
the effects of climate change on our homeland security but also the
powerful economic effects of these trade agreements on our homeland
security. I mean, frankly, when it comes to climate change, an
administration study on the social life of the ostrich isn't going to
suffice.
We have to take a direction that shows we know there is a problem
because of the effects. We are seeing the effects of these trade
agreements on our economy. We already know where these trade agreements
have taken our economy. We have over an $800 billion trade deficit. If
that doesn't raise a question of homeland security, what does?
Support the Brown amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced $60,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment moves $40 million from
the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and $60 million
from the Office of the Under Secretary of Management to construction
under Customs and Border Patrol towards building a wall, a fence on our
southern border. It sets up $100 million, $40 million from the one
category and $60 million from the other category.
This is a simple concept, Mr. Chairman. I have this demonstration
here of just simply a precast concrete foundation that would be set in
with a trencher and slip-form machine that would leave a slot in here.
One could then take tongue-and-groove panels that would be 13\1/2\ feet
long by 6 inches thick and drop them in here. It is a very fast and
efficient construction method and a relatively cheap construction
method. It is installable, it is removable, and it is impregnable, at
least with the things we are seeing on the border today.
I have taken a number of trips down to the border, have spent a
number of nights on the border, and have observed what is going on down
there; and I am be absolutely convinced that we will never get
operational control of our border unless we are able to put in a human
barrier that will be effective.
There are $60 billion worth of illegal drugs that are coming across
our southern border; and no matter what we do to put in a vehicle
barrier or put another 6,000 Border Patrol troops down there, they will
still infiltrate through. We can make their time far more effective by
having a sealed human barrier.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate my colleague from
Iowa (Mr. King) for offering this amendment, and I certainly appreciate
his leadership and dedication to this issue.
I do want to commend Chairman Rogers on his dedicated leadership to
putting together a strong homeland security bill which includes $30
million to complete the San Diego border infrastructure system,
including a fence there, as well as $8 million with the cost associated
with the Arizona Border Control Initiative. Those are good things.
What our amendment does is supplement that and adds $100 million by
taking out money for bureaucrats sitting here in Washington that are
not making this country safer by sitting in an office. We want to put
fences out in the places that will be needed and necessary.
This $100 million will stop this mass flow of illegal immigrants
across our southern border. The 12 million illegals, 10 to 20 million,
in this country, in fact, can attest to the ease by which you can cross
over the border.
I commend my colleague, Mr. King, for his dedicated leadership to
this very important issue in stifling the flow of illegal immigrants
across our southern border, and I urge my colleagues to support this
initiative.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
This bill provides significant resources for border security programs
and is currently balanced among the many competing homeland security
priorities. This amendment significantly upsets that balance and
undermines the Department's ability to effectively integrate its
business systems.

{time} 1645

I have grave concerns about the offsets contained in this amendment,
offsets that decimate DHS's management. Taking $40 million, almost half
of the Secretary's budget, would effectively shut down all planning and
management from DHS leadership.
We have already reallocated $50 million from the Office of Under
Secretary to operational agencies in the bill itself. A $61 million
reduction to this office would stop all work on the new personnel and
payroll systems that are under development.
The subcommittee carefully reviewed the President's request and made
significant modifications in order to ensure all mission areas had
sufficient resources.
What this amendment does is unravel over 5 months of committee
oversight. We have held 11 hearings this year, digging deep into the
resource requirements of the Department and examining the most ominous
threats facing the Nation. Almost without exception, all of the
programs funded in this bill are critical. But what we can't afford to
do is fund one program at the expense of all others.
This bill provides significant border security resources, administers
tough oversight, drives DHS to properly plan its work and improve our
border security and immigration enforcement programs. I would hope that
we would turn down this amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the word.
I just wanted to rise and agree with the chairman. This is an
amendment that should not be adopted. We have already spent additional
significant resources on the border. We are also starting the SDI
program, the Secure Borders Initiative. I happen to think it is not
well planned, but my assumption is that programs like this would be
part of whatever this grand scheme is that is being developed.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would make a parliamentary inquiry of the
Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. SABO. We made some modest cuts in the Office of Under Secretary
in our first amendment as related to fire grants which was adopted
which I thought was okay to do; but I notice a whole host of amendments
are funded by additional cuts to that same office.
I am curious if we roll votes and eventually there are more cuts than
money exists, what happens? I understand this amendment takes an
additional $60 billion out of the office. There are others coming with
several million. There is a whole array of amendments, all of which
take money from this particular office.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman that amendments
already pending as unfinished business would be disposed of in due
course.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to listen
because this is the Neighborhood

[[Page H3295]]

Watch of homeland security, and every single Member has the Citizen
Corps as established by the homeland security legislation a few years
ago. The authorizing committee supports the Citizen Corps that is
basically premised on securing the homeland in the neighborhoods.
I simply want to come as close to the President's request as
possible. The request the President made was $35 million. We have in
this bill 0 amount for the Citizen Corps. We simply take a very, very
small amount, Mr. Chairman, $3 million, to provide some comfort and
relief to all of the community-based organizations that engage as part
of the Citizen Corps for safety in the neighborhoods. It was a
wonderful concept, and the concept was devised so everyone could be a
stakeholder in the Nation's security. One of the few things that did
work in the course of the 2005 hurricanes was the Citizen Corps.
Members of the Citizen Corps helped train the tens of thousands of
volunteers who showed up and asked for something to do. They are still
working.
I can recall as thousands upon thousands of evacuees began to enter
into the city of Houston and the county of Harris, Mayor Bill White and
Judge Robert Eckels, county government and city government relied upon
the Citizens Corps established so all could be stakeholders.
I am very proud that the National Volunteer Fire Council is
supporting this legislation and asking colleagues to support it. We
realize we have some very difficult times and some very difficult
decisions to make, but I can assure you that the Citizen Corps
implements five programs around the United States: community emergency
response team; the medical reserve corps; the Neighborhood Watch
program; the Volunteers in the Police Service and the Fire Corps.
I can remember after 9/11 when we began to tell Americans watch for
suspicious packages, watch for suspicious persons, be part of the
security of the Nation. That is the concept of the Citizen Corps. This
does not undermine the underpinnings of this bill. In fact, it enhances
it. It reaffirms volunteerism and makes Americans a partner in their
own homeland security.
I know we cannot provide the $35 million that the President has asked
for. I wish we could. This just gives an extra $3 million. That may
fund one or two more National Volunteer Fire Councils, one or two more
Citizen Corps. I can assure you when your communities hear about
Citizen Corps, they will want to have it.
Just a few weeks ago in our community, the Citizen Corps planned a
city-wide preparedness effort. People from all walks of life, all
neighborhoods, all economic levels worked together to provide security
for their communities.
We can do that all over the Nation. Members, if they just ask the
question to their county government or city government, they will find
out that Citizen Corps is alive and well. This money is their lifeline.
This money keeps them going. This money provides them educational
outreach. It provides the money for the Neighborhood Watch program, the
Volunteers to the Police Service and the Fire Corps. I ask my
colleagues to support this.
I appreciate the work of the ranking member and the chairman. I would
ask my colleagues to not forget the National Volunteer Fire Council and
all of those volunteers that come under the Citizen Corps. Let us help
them get to the next step and provide security for the United States. I
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
This amendment seeks to increase funding for the Homeland Security
Citizens Corps by $3 million from $0 million to $3 million. The program
has been widely regarded as effective and President Bush requested that
it be funded in the amount of $35 million. For more information on the
program, visit www.citizenscorps.gov.
One of the few things that did work in the course of the 2005
hurricanes was the Citizen Corps. Members of the Citizen Corps helped
organize and train the tens of thousands of volunteers who showed up
and asked for something to do.
The Harris County, Texas Citizen Corps Council implements five
programs: the Community Emergency Response Team, the Medical Reserve
Corps, the Neighborhood Watch Program, the Volunteers in Police
Service, and the Fire Corps.
The volunteers who participate in these programs help support our
emergency responders year round and they provide a trained surge
capacity in times of crisis.
The Harris County Citizen Corps Council also conducts outreach to
educate the general public about the hazards we face and the county's
emergency operations plan, including evacuations and considerations for
people with disabilities, language and cultural barriers, and economic
challenges.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to increase the
funding, as President Bush has requested, for the Citizen Corps in
order to train our citizens to become better prepared for whatever the
future holds.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Citizen Corps was originally established to create the
Citizens Preparedness Guidebook to give Americans guidance on how to
prepare in their homes, neighborhoods, workplaces, and public spaces.
That work has been done.
Citizen Corps Councils are redundant. Work is being performed by
State and local homeland security emergency preparedness offices. State
offices are now robust enough after 9/11 to assess threats, help with
community planning, evacuation and the like. These are government
functions, not volunteer functions.
Citizen Corps functions are funded through other sources. Money comes
to them from the Department of Justice through its Neighborhood Watch
programs, its volunteers and police service programs, and the
Department of Health and Human Services through its medical reserve
program.
The subcommittee's 302(b) allocation could not accommodate all of the
President's requests. The allocation of $32 billion does not fully
adjust for the proposed increase in aviation passenger fees generating
$1.3 billion in new revenue. Therefore, the committee has had to make
some very tough choices, and this is one of them.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I support the Citizen Corps and yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am very cognizant of the
very difficult choices of this subcommittee. We had difficult choices
in the authorizing committee.
But I would say to the distinguished gentleman, with all due respect,
the President did not think that this allocation of $35 million which
we were not able to give was redundant.
Also the Homeland Security Department likewise continues to promote
the Citizen Corps, particularly through the National Fire Council.
The whole fabric and framework of America changed after Hurricane
Katrina and Hurricane Rita. We saw the value of the Citizens Corps in
the midst of the hurricane. I cannot tell you the vastness of the
support that came to a city and a county like Houston and Harris County
when thousands upon thousands of evacuees, and I might imagine that
happened to New York and Dallas and Los Angeles, it was the Citizen
Corps that did the heavy lifting.
I would ask my colleagues with respect to the challenges of this
particular appropriations to consider this amendment and consider those
volunteers on the ground. Do not let the National Council of Fire
Volunteers down. This is their source of funding. I ask my colleagues
to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Langevin:
Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000)''.
Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $33,000,000)''.
Page 42, line 16, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $36,000,000)''.

[[Page H3296]]

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to ask all Members to fully
fund the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office within the Department of
Homeland Security.
My amendment will add $36 million to the DNDO for a total of $536
million, the exact amount requested by the President. My amendment
would increase the funding to the amount authorized also by the Safe
Ports Act which passed this House just a few weeks ago by the
overwhelming margin of 421-2.
The DNDO was created within the Department of Homeland Security to
develop, acquire and deploy the global nuclear detection architecture
to prevent nuclear material from being smuggled into our country. The
office coordinates with a variety of public and private sector
organizations, including the Departments of Defense, Energy and State,
the FBI, State, local and tribal governments. The office is jointly
staffed by experts from many of these agencies.
As the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on the
Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I have to say, Mr.
Chairman, I am kept awake at night by the fear that a terrorist could
smuggle nuclear material across our borders to detonate a bomb in one
of our cities.
These radiation detectors are our last best chance to prevent a
catastrophic nuclear or radiological attack, and our intelligence
analysts tell us the threat is very real.
The DNDO is already in the process of deploying radiation detectors
at our border crossings, ports and other points of entry. They have a
goal of deploying more than 3,000 of these detectors by 2009.
But I believe the risk is too great to wait until 2009. Worse yet, a
recent GAO report stated that the DNDO could not even meet the 2009
goal without additional funding. An additional $36 million will help
speed the deployment and the development of radiation portal monitors,
handheld and mobile radiation detectors, and the next generation
advanced spectroscopic portals, which all provide a varying range of
detection capability.

{time} 1700

Mr. Chairman, I have great faith in the DNDO, but they need
sufficient resources to complete their vital mission. Every year we
spend more than $9 billion in missile defense. Surely, we can spend an
additional $36 million to prevent nuclear smuggling, which intelligence
analysts insist is a far greater threat.
Earlier this afternoon, I had the opportunity to question Vayl
Oxford, President Bush's appointee to direct the DNDO, at our
subcommittee hearing. He indicated that without full funding, DNDO
would have to scale back valuable short- and long-term research and
development projects that will lead to the next generation detection
equipment, which will be faster and more accurate.
My amendment is offset by the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management by $3 million and the Office of Undersecretary for
Management by $33 million.
Mr. Chairman, the threat of nuclear smuggling is too important to
ignore. I ask my colleagues to join me in fully funding the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office to develop and deploy detectors before we miss
our opportunity to prevent nuclear material from being smuggled into
our country, and ultimately, it will allow us to save lives.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Sabo, here we go again, another amendment to take money from the
Office of Secretary and Executive Management and the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management. As Mr. Sabo has pointed out earlier, if
we keep cutting this office, there will not be any office.
The gentleman's amendment would want to increase funding for DNDO by
$36 million. Our bill already provides, Mr. Chairman, a 59 percent
increase for this office above the current level. The committee reduced
funding for DNDO below the budget request because we had concerns with
two specific programs, Surge, s-u-r-g-e and transformational research.
The Surge program is an effort to purchase and restore equipment for
use in times of need, a good idea for a more mature program.
But at this point, resources are needed for detectors on the front
lines. Transformational Research, though trimmed, is still an increase
of 50 percent over last year. I think we are doing the best we can do
by this office at this time.
I oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 14, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's families face a growing threat
from the proliferation of child exploitation and pornography on the
Internet. One in five children report having been sexually solicited on
the Internet; 3.5 million pornographic images of children of American
children are now estimated to be in circulation on the Internet. This
is a rapidly growing problem and one which has already grown far beyond
what most Americans are aware of.
Last year alone, child pornography brought traffickers $20 billion in
profits as compared to only $3 billion for legitimate Internet music
sales. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations on which I sit as the ranking member recently held
hearings to highlight this growing threat.
During the course of these hearings, members of the subcommittee had
a chance to hear about the excellent work the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Cyber Crime Center is doing to combat child exploitation.
Since the center was founded in 2003, less than 3 years ago, its work
has resulted in arrests of over 7,500 child predators.
The Cyber Crimes Center was funded at only $6 million last year, but
has already been recognized as being at the forefront in fighting, in
the fight against child exploitation and Internet crime. My amendment
would add $5 billion to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
salaries and expenses which would be used by the Cyber Crimes Center to
expand their operations.
The $5 million would be offset by reduction in the Office of the
Secretary, which is funded over $95 million in the base bill. I believe
that this $5 million amendment is the least we can do in the fight
against a $20 billion criminal industry that preys on our children.
This is a chance to reward and expand the excellent law enforcement
work being done at ICE and to take steps to combat the increasing
threat to our children and families. If you look at the committee
report, it indicates, and I quote from the committee report in support
of this legislation here today, this year, the committee notes gaps in
funding for drug interdiction, human smuggling, cyber crimes, child
pornography, Secret Service investigations and funding for our first
responders.
The committee recommendation includes $5 million, the same as fiscal
year 2006, for memory and technology support for the Cyber Crimes
Center. We are doing what the committee is asking us to do.
Who are the victims of child pornography? Eighty percent of these
predators have material depicting children under the age of 12; 40
percent under the age of 6; and 20 percent are victims under the age of
3. Victims are 28 times more likely to become prostitutes; 86 percent
of the victims develop serious long-term mental illness.
Mr. Chairman, we are working on this amendment here tonight, and we
are taking it from the Secretary's budget, and I am sure that the
chairman will once again say we are going

[[Page H3297]]

to take this Secretary away and have nothing left.
Well, there is $95 million. We want $5 million, because this is a
growing problem. It has been by leaps and bounds. In fact, we are doing
more hearings as soon as we get back first part of June. We have had
hearings in which 15,000 names, addresses, credit cards, Internet
provider addresses were turned over to the Department of Justice, and
nothing is done because the resources are not there to follow through.
So reality is that Internet child pornography and exploitation is
growing more rampant, more horrific, and more sophisticated. The Cyber
Crimes Unit employees know all too well how daunting their job is. We
owe it to these dedicated men and women to give them all the resources
we can. This additional $5 million will make a meaningful difference.
The appropriations bill, while an increase over the President's
request, essentially has flat funded this program. I thank the
committee for their continued commitment, and I know we have to make
some tough decisions, but this is one we should do for America's
children and to stop this horrific crime of child exploitation and
pornography over the Internet.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Here we go again, cutting the Secretary and the Secretary for
Management's office. If we keep doing this, we are not going to have an
office. So I have grave concerns. The Office of the Secretary has
already been reduced from 2006 by $30 million and the President's
budget request by $2 million because of vacancies within the office.
Further reductions would cut into critical funding to hire for the
management and oversight of the Secure Border Initiative and to ensure
that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., known as CFIUS,
is adequately staffed to fully monitor possible foreign investment in
critical infrastructure.
Border security and CFIUS issues span multiple agencies within the
Department. Both of these issues have been in the news, of course,
repeatedly, and the Department has been severely criticized for its
lack of expertise and breadth of knowledge in these areas. If there is
no one to work on the issues within the Office of the Secretary, I can
assure you they will not be adequately addressed. Each DHS agency will
work separately and independently from each other, keeping the
stovepipes in place and ensuring that these criticisms continue.
I completely agree with the gentleman that the work being carried out
by ICE's child exploitation unit, known as C3, is critical. This
amendment would effectively double the operating budget of the C3. We
have already increased funding for the center in our base bill. The
bill we have presented to this body balances and reflects 5 months of
careful oversight and review. The resources provided to C3, $5 million,
are sufficient for the pending year. Additional funding is not
necessary and could not be used.
So while I applaud the gentleman's priorities here, I find the
increase not practical nor needed and ask our colleagues to reject this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Under Secretary for Management

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Management, as authorized by sections 701 through 705 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341-345),
$159,489,000: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be
for official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That of the total amount provided, $8,206,000 shall
remain available until expended solely for the alteration and
improvement of facilities, tenant improvements, and
relocation costs to consolidate Department headquarters
operations.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $35,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $35,000,000)''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we have something which is called the
Metropolitan Medical Response System. This is the system that has been
set up in 125 major communities across the United States, every major
metropolitan area, in order to coordinate the response of the police,
the fire and the emergency medical personnel in the event that there is
a terrorist attack; a hurricane; tornado; an earthquake; or, as we have
learned over the last 6 or 8 months, an avian flu disaster which hits a
community. Last year, there was $30 million which was appropriated. To
the credit of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky and the
gentleman from Minnesota, after the White House recommended zero for
this program, the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from
Minnesota have restored the $30 million. But in the Homeland Security
Committee, on which I serve, by a unanimous vote just a month ago, our
committee voted to double the number to $60 million.
Now, why did we do that? Well, in addition to that number's being
endorsed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, all of these
medical personnel across the country who say that the funding is
woefully inadequate, you have just about every local police and fire
department who are saying that they are going to be overwhelmed if one
of these disasters hits their community.
So just to recap the last 12 months, since the $30 million was
established as the number, we have already had Hurricane Katrina, which
has exposed the inadequacies of the coordination of local police and
fire and medical personnel. We have had the avian flu, which has arisen
as a threat to the public health and safety of every community in our
country. And there is no community at this point which is bragging that
they are prepared to deal with this catastrophe if it hits their
hometown.

{time} 1715

So what we have done is identify a couple of programs, including the
MAXHR program, which every union in America is opposed to because it is
just going to redesign the whole way in which people are hired, and
instead substituted money which will actually go to these local police
and fire and medical personnel so that we can have the planning which
is put in place.
We all know that when a catastrophe occurs in a community, nobody
calls the Department of Homeland Security. They call the local police
department, they call the local fire department, they call the local
hospital. They are crying out to us saying they don't have the
resources. That is why the Homeland Security Committee upped the number
from $30 million to $60 million just last month.
Every one of these people, we saw it New York City, we saw it down
here, these people are heroes. But heroes need help. They need the
resources. They need the planning to be put in place. That is why the
fire chiefs, that is why these local unions are all crying out, please,
give us the help. We will take the risk. We will go into the flaming
buildings. We will try to stop the flood. We will put our own health on
the line in the event of an avian flu hitting a community. But give us
the planning, give us the capacity now to put in place the response
mechanism.
That is what this amendment does. And all it does is respond to what
all these experts have told us the number has to be. $30 million is
clearly inadequate, given what we have learned since last year with
avian flu and what happened in New Orleans and across the whole gulf
coast.
I urge an ``aye'' vote in order to ensure that this funding is made
available to these local heroes.

Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

[[Page H3298]]

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in
the bill by $3.5 million.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for this amendment to be
considered en bloc. I would ask for the gentleman from Kentucky to
explain further his point of order so that it can be better understood
by the Chair and by the proponent of the amendment.
I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not yield, but the Chair will hear
each Member in turn.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the
Chair. The amendment amends two portions of the bill, one taking from
one section and giving back to another.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have further comment on the point of
order?
Mr. MARKEY. No, I await the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. To be considered en bloc
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an amendment must not propose to
increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. Because
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts proposes a
net increase in the level of outlays in the bill, as argued by the
chairman of the relevant Subcommittee on Appropriations, it may not
avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet
read.
The point of order is upheld.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, could you tell me where in the amendment there is a
proposed change in the budget authority?
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order was based on an increase in outlays,
not budget authority.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may continue to make a parliamentary
inquiry, we have a CBO score that says that there is actually a
reduction in outlays of $20 million. I am asking my staff to present to
the Chair, before he concludes his ruling, the actual documentation
from CBO that reflects that finding, which I think would as a result
mean that the amendment was in compliance.
Mr. Chairman, I think we are each aware at this point there is a
certain amount of terminological inexactitude in the numbers that both
sides are using right now; and, as a result, I defer to the ruling of
the Chair. But I will announce that I will try to come back with a
redrafted proposal in this area.
The CHAIRMAN. The ruling of the Chair stands.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lynch

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Lynch:
Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $50,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 15, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 30, line 7, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, together with Mr. Holt of New Jersey and Mr.
Castle of Delaware, this amendment seeks to increase the amount
appropriated by H.R. 5441 for rail and transportation security grants
from $150 million to $200 million.
The $50 million added to the rail security grants is to be offset by
a novel idea today, which is to decrease by $50 million the amount
appropriated for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management.
Mr. Chairman, we are grossly underfunding rail security in this
country at a time when it should be a major priority. There is an old
saying that states that Congress is always fighting the last war. If
you look at the area of transportation security, we have spent $22
billion on aviation security, 97 percent of the transportation money,
and only 3 percent of transportation security money on rail. So 97
percent, $22 billion, on aviation, and about half a billion dollars on
rail security. This flies in the face of experience.
As you look around the world today, the pattern of terrorist activity
has been markedly against rail systems. If you go back to 1995, the
Tokyo rail system was attacked by sarin gas. The Algerian rebels
attacked the Paris subways. Going further, the Chechnyan rebels
attacking the Moscow subways, the attacks in Madrid against their
commuter rail system, many, many attacks on bus systems in Israel and,
most recently, the London attacks against their subway system.
So there is a definite repeated pattern of conduct of these
terrorists to attack rail systems. We need to be aware that they are
looking at attacking our rail system. You would think that we would
take appropriate steps to address that, given the fact that five times
as many people travel by rail as travel by air.
Rather than addressing that woeful state of rail transit security
funding, the current administration has actually sought to further
shortchange these critical transportation systems. Most recently, the
President's FY 2007 budget request allocated only $37 million to the
Transportation Security Administration for non-aviation transportation
security. That is less than 1 percent of TSA's budget, 1 percent for
rail. Moreover, the President again proposed the outright elimination
of rail and transit security grants.
Accordingly, I would like to first commend Chairman Rogers and
Ranking Member Sabo for their great efforts to preserve separate
funding for rail security. However, I am greatly concerned that rail
and transit security grant funding has remained at $150 million under
the past two DHS appropriations bills. In addition, I am equally
concerned that the bill under consideration today proposes to
appropriate the same $150 million for FY 2007.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support our
amendment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleague from Massachusetts as well
as my colleague from Delaware, who is the cochair of the House
Passenger Rail Caucus, in shifting this funding into the rail, freight
and transit security grant program.

{time} 1730

I understand what the appropriators have gone through. Maybe everyone
in this House could rewrite the bill in some way. But it clearly merits
attention when we are spending 70 times as much for air security as for
rail security.
As the 9/11 Commission said, it appears that we are fighting the last
war. Of course, we watched in horror as airplanes were used as
explosive missiles. But we have thousands of people traveling by rail.
We have important freight routes. We have thousands of miles of track,
just in New Jersey, 800 trains, 1,000 miles of track, 161 rail stations
patrolled by a couple hundred uniformed officers.
The money in this program that we propose to increase can be used for
explosive-agent sensors, for security cameras, for interoperable
communications. That was driven home to us just today when travelers in
the northeast corridor coming out of New York traveling through New
Jersey were shut down for hours.
And as they were shut down because of a power failure, they
discovered they had difficulty communicating with each other. The
various trains had trouble communicating with each other. We clearly
need to address the security in all of these areas.
The GAO reported in 2002 that in just eight transit agencies, there
was a need for security improvements that totaled well over $700
million, far more than we have spent in the intervening years.
Mr. Chairman, you have heard from my friend from Massachusetts that
this is not a maybe; there is unfortunately a long tally of security
breaches, of terrorist attacks around the world. And this funding will
go a long way toward preparing the rail systems throughout the United
States against such terrorist attacks.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of the Holt-Castle-Lynch
amendment to increase funding for crucial intercity passenger rail
transit and freight security grants. By transit, we are talking about
subways and local trains.
Earlier this morning, as the gentleman from New Jersey just stated,

[[Page H3299]]

the northeast corridor came to a halt, and close to 70,000 commuters
were effectively stranded between Boston and Washington, D.C.,
including several trains trapped in tunnels in New York City and
Baltimore.
I was not on any of those trains, but that one stuck in Baltimore is
the one that I could have been on very easily. While this frightening
incident turned out to be the result of a power outage, it underscores
the sheer panic and disruption that a terrorist attack on rail systems
could cause in this and many other parts of the country.
In the wake of attacks on subway trains in London and on passenger
rail lines in Madrid, it is clear that terrorist organizations are
intent on disrupting surface transportation systems and mass transit
around the world.
While the legislation before us provides essential funding for much
needed aviation and port security programs, we still have not had
success in developing a comparable strategy for securing our Nation's
rail and transit systems.
Over the last several years, funding for rail and transit security
grants has been stagnant at $150 million, and annual rail security
spending for the Transportation Security Administration has been
minimal when compared to the $20 billion that our government has spend
on aviation security since 2001.
In fact, the 9/11 Commission characterized the Federal focus on
aviation security following the 2001 terrorist attacks as ``fighting
the last war'' and noted that opportunities to do harm are as great or
greater in maritime or surface transportation.
Clearly, Congress must change course and get a few steps ahead rather
than constantly reacting to incidents and attacks once they have
already occurred. Over 9.7 billion transit trips are taken annually on
all modes of transit service. And the American Public Transportation
Association recently estimated that $560 million is necessary to begin
securing rail and transit systems this year alone.
While our amendment is not a complete solution to this funding
shortfall, it represents a responsible step forward to begin funding
critical priorities. The Holt-Castle-Lynch amendment is fully offset. I
realize it is offset from the same Office of the Under Secretary of
Management that concerns Mr. Rogers and Mr. Sabo, but I am sure there
are other oppositions because they were trying to protect the money for
us in this particular amendment, and they will speak to that,
hopefully, shortly to come later.
It would boost funding to add more police officers, K-9 teams,
security cameras, fences and chemical detection systems at train
stations and on subways and commuter systems across the country. We are
very lucky that an attack has not taken place in the United States. And
we now have a great opportunity to be proactive and begin adequately
funding rail and transit security in this country.
This amendment sets forth the course for achieving this goal, and I
ask my colleagues to support this critical provision to protect
American travelers.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the fact that we have been flat-
funding rail security over the last several years. Millions of tons of
hazardous materials are shipped daily across America's rail lines. And
any one of these shipments could become potentially a weapon of mass
destruction.
Also, millions and millions of passengers travel our passenger rails
every day and could be placed at risk by a terrorist attack. Let's just
look at the record. In the year 2001, a 60-car freight train carrying
hazardous materials derailed in a tunnel in Baltimore and literally
shut down the city.
In March 2004, a series of coordinated attacks in Madrid, Spain,
killed 192 people. In July of 2005, three bombs exploded in the British
or the London Underground; 56 people were killed and 700 were injured.
We see from these terrorist attacks abroad that there is a pattern of
activity and an ability to target these rail systems successfully.
And yet here in the United States, we have flat-funded security for
our passenger rail and for our freight rail. My family rides the rails
virtually every day. I have got relatives in Connecticut who commute
into New York City. My wife goes to Boston twice a week. When my
daughter and my niece come up from New York, they ride the rails.
So this may not appear to be a hazard to some of our colleagues who
live in parts of the country that do not rely as heavily as we do on
rail transportation, but what we have discovered from talking to the
Amtrak police over the last several months is that there are three
Amtrak policemen covering the route, stationed in New Haven and
covering the route roughly from the New York border to Providence.
Another three out of Baltimore covering the routes north and south from
New York and to Washington, D.C.
This does not seem to be an adequate investment of personnel to cover
these passenger trains that go along these tracks on a daily basis.
Furthermore, the Amtrak police have a tremendous turnover of personnel.
They have lost 100 percent of their personnel over the last 10 years
due to the lack of a contract, a lack of adequate funding and a lack of
benefits.
And new personnel that come in and train frequently leave after a
year or so to get better paying jobs in municipal police forces around
the northeastern United States. This is a serious problem that needs to
be addressed.
My colleagues have referred to our fighting the last war. And we have
done a magnificent job in providing resources for aviation. We have
done very well. But we seem to have forgotten that more people travel
on our passenger rails on a daily basis than fly.
And less people and less dollars are applied to this problem. The
American Public Transportation Association has written to us on the
subject and has pointed out that rail security is seriously
underfunded. So I am glad to join my colleagues in supporting this
amendment to H.R. 5441.
I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for all of his
hard work and especially the staff. But I think this is an area where
we need to add some more dollars.
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the amendment proposed by my
good friends in the northeast corridor, Congressman Castle and
Congressman Holt.
This amendment would provide a much needed increase of $50 million
for public transportation security. Mr. Chairman, just today hundreds
of my constituents were trapped on a completely shut down northeast
corridor of the Amtrak system. It turned out, as we know now, to be a
power outage. It could have just as well have been an attack on the
infrastructure.
Attacks in London, Madrid and Russia emphasize the great and
immediate need to strengthen security on public transit systems. I
advise everyone to heed this warning. An APTA survey found transit
agencies around the country have identified more than $6 billion in
transit security funding needs.
The Federal Government must be a full partner in the effort to ensure
the security of the Nation's transit users. Terrorists do not only
target the sky, Mr. Chairman. This amendment recognizes the need for
greater Federal resources for rail and public transportation security.
Americans use public transportation vehicles over 32 million times
each weekday. This is more than 16 times the number of daily travels on
the Nation's airlines. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the bill is currently balanced among the many competing
homeland security priorities. This amendment significantly upsets that
balance and undermines the Department's ability to effectively
integrate its business systems.
The subcommittee carefully reviewed the President's request. We made
significant modifications in order to ensure all mission areas had
sufficient resources, including restoration of funds for all first
responder grants by adding $500 million; restoration of funds for
critical law enforcement functions, such as the CPB air and marine
operations, and the Secret Service. We increased funding for critical
explosive

[[Page H3300]]

detection systems, significant funding and oversight for all aspects of
border security and immigration reform.
What this amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is unravel over 5 months
of committee oversight, 11 hearings, digging deep into the resource
requirements of the Department, facing the most ominous threats facing
our Nation. The fact is, almost without exception, all of the programs
funded in this bill are critical.
But what we cannot afford to do is fund one program at the expense of
all of the others. I have grave concerns about a $50 million reduction
in the Office of the Under Secretary For Management. We have talked
about this all day today.
This office is already $8 million below funding for the current year.
Assuming that the under secretary of management would not lay off its
current personnel, key projects would have to be terminated in order to
absorb the $50 million reduction in this office.
The under secretary for management is responsible for consolidating
the 22 agencies that formed DHS in 2003, 180,000 employees, 18
different personnel and payroll systems, and numerous financial
management systems. We have made some progress. More is needed.
But a $50 million reduction in this office would ensure that the
under secretary would have to stop all work on the new personnel and
payroll systems that are under development now.
Because of the size of this offset, the under secretary would be
prevented from the hiring of 25 new procurement employees that we
provided for him. The Department has been unable to receive a clean
financial audit in the first 2 years of its existence and has
repeatedly been in the news for poor procurement decisions and
inadequate contract management.
The 25 new procurement employees were requested to help the
Department receive a clean financial audit, get a better handle on the
Department's contracts.
As far as the proposed increase for rail and transit security, the
responsibility of securing our Nation's rail and mass transit systems
is shared between the Department of Homeland Security, the Department
of transportation, and in partnership with the public and private
entities that own and operate the Nation's transit and rail systems.

{time} 1745

Since DHS was created, $436 million has been appropriated for rail
security. With $150 million in this bill, we will have provided a total
of $603 million for rail security in the last 3 years.
The Department of Transportation, Mr. Chairman, has also provided
funding for rail and transit security, averaging about $40 to $50
million per year. That funding, coupled with the funding that we
provide, equals the total amount contained in the amendment of the
gentleman. We are giving you the money from two different places. So I
think we have satisfied the gentleman's financial request, and I would
hope that we would oppose and vote against this amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
It's been almost five years since the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, and more than two years since the terrorist train bombing in
Madrid, Spain, which killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,800
others, making it the deadliest terrorist attack against European
civilians since 1988. We are now fast approaching the first anniversary
of the London terrorist attacks.
The Madrid and London bombings were just the latest in a series of
terrorist attacks on railroads worldwide. Between 1998 and 2003, there
were 181 attacks on trains and rail-related targets such as depots,
ticket stations, and rail bridges, resulting in an estimated 431 deaths
and several thousand injuries.
Yet the Federal Government has done little to enhance rail and
transit security in the United States. This year, the United States
will spend $4.7 billion on aviation security, while spending only $150
million on rail and transit security, even though five times as many
people take trains as planes every day.
Amtrak alone has requested over $100 million in security upgrades and
nearly $600 million for fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on
the Northeast Corridor in New York, Maryland, and Washington, DC. The
American Public Transit Association, which represents transit agencies
and commuter railroads, has well-documented transit security needs that
exceed $6 billion (including more than $5.2 billion of capital
investment security needs).
This bill--for the third year in a row--provides a meager $150
million to be split up among our Nation's passenger railroad, transit
agencies, seven Class I railroads, and more than 500 short line and
regional railroads.
The Lynch amendment will provide an additional $50 million for rail
and transit security. While I believe that even more funding should be
provided for security improvements, such as interoperable communication
systems, cameras, improved lighting, fencing and secured gates,
chemical/biological/radiological detection sensors, bomb sniffing dogs,
and many other needed rail security improvements, it is more than we
have done in the past, and it is at least on par for what we have
provided for port security.
We have got to act now to protect the safety and security of our
Nation's railroads and transit systems. We owe it to the service
providers, passengers, workers, and communities. We must pass this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be
postponed.
Are there further amendments to this paragraph?

Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Page 3, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
Page 5, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, we have already had some
discussion about the Secretary's budget and the concerns of the Chair
and certainly there needs to be some amount of support for that, but
this goes to a critical function, a function of the Department which
actually could produce more dollars and make America more secure.
The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General has
done tremendous work. They have saved the taxpayers millions of
dollars. They have uncovered fraud and abuse. Right from the beginning
the $500,000 that was spent on art, silk, plants and other frou frou
things at the new headquarters, that was uncovered by the OIG.
The OIG was then detailed, 75 people out of an already inadequately
staffed office, to help with Katrina oversight. They found 10,000
mobile homes, at a cost of $301.7 million, vacant and sinking into the
mud in Arkansas; $3 million in overcharges for food and lodging
provided to disaster responders; a million dollars in overbilling by
one company for hotel rooms for disaster evacuees. As of this date, the
Office of the Inspector General has unfortunately had to continue to
detail 75 people to the Katrina and the disaster recovery oversight.
That is bringing about approximately a $15 million shortfall. Yes,
there is a minimal increase in their budget, but it is about $15
million short of what they need.
They not only find fraud and abuse and overt waste, but make America
more secure by spending those dollars more wisely. I am familiar with
their work in the area of aviation security. They have been showing us
the holes in the aviation security system in baggage screening, in
passenger screening and other areas. Absolutely vital function. Again,
they have been cut back because of the redeployment and the
reassignment of the people to deal with the Katrina recovery effort.
And it is not at all certain that those people will be coming back for
years.

[[Page H3301]]

So I think it is essential that we find more funds to have more
personnel full time, qualified personnel in this office; and in the end
the taxpayers will come out ahead. We will avoid waste, and we will
more efficiently spend the dollars we have.
I know the chairman will raise concerns about the Secretary's budget.
I would suggest another place perhaps that could be cut in the overhead
budget is the $21.2 million limousine contract. Now, granted that is a
3-year contract, but that is $7 million a year up from $3.8 million
last year. There have been some revelations, and this certainly isn't
for security purposes since as I understand it the owner of the company
is a convicted felon. So I do not think we are providing security to
senior level DHS people by putting them in limousines of a company
owned by a felon.
I would wonder how many people there are that need limousines there
at the Department of Homeland Security. $7 million a year? I mean, if
there are 100 people, that is $700,000 a year. I can't even image there
are 100 people who need limousine services. There are a lot of caps
floating around D.C. loose.
I would suggest we could dramatically reduce the limousine budget,
and I am sure there are a few other places we could find in the
Secretary's overhead, and we could rededicate that money to the Office
of the Inspector General, and we could squeeze out the fraud and abuse
and better serve our taxpayers and make the country more secure.
So I am hopeful that the chairman would be willing to look favorably
upon this amendment to help the OIG deal with their current backlog.
This is as of March, I did not ask for an update, they had 4,151
allegations of fraud and abuse on file. And they have been able to
investigate 429 of the 4,151 allegations of abuse.
You cannot tell me that they are overfunded or even near adequately
funded when there is nearly 3,800 pending investigations on allegations
of abuse.
This Department contracts, almost one-third of their total budget is
contracted. They should have the most robust OIG force in the Federal
Government. Instead, they have the smallest OIG force of any agency in
the Federal Government despite the fact that a third of all the funds
that go are contracted out and that does not even include the emergency
Katrina issue which I addressed earlier.
So, again, I would hope the chairman could look favorably upon
increasing the OIG budget and accept this amendment.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman. The amendment proposes to
amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be
considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment
proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any Members wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Would that preclude then offering the amendment again
later?
We can either do it now or we can do it later, if he wants to raise a
technical point, if I have to wait for one more intervening person and
offer it again.
The CHAIRMAN. If the reading progresses past this paragraph, then an
amendment could be offered to this paragraph only by unanimous consent.
Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. DeFAZIO. It was my understanding that after the en bloc we were
in section 1 of the bill at an appropriate point; and since the
previous amendments had addressed taking the money from the office, the
same office from which I would take the money, I am a bit puzzled as to
why this one is not in order and the earlier ones were.
Mr. SABO. My understanding is that Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Marshall both
have amendments to page 3 on line 15, so I assume what the Chair is
saying is that if the gentleman redrafted his amendment before we moved
to some place beyond Pascrell and Marshall, he would be in order to
offer a revised amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Then I would withdraw. Unfortunately, that would mean
that we would have to replicate the debate. It would be better if the
chairman just rose in opposition as he is going to later and he voted
``no'' and I voted ``aye'' and we had a recorded vote.
If the gentleman insists on his point of order, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw my amendment at this point in time and offer the
amendment later. I was offering a way to save the body time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Pascrell:
Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
Page 4, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $10,300,000)''.
Page 16, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,300,000)''.
Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today will
help address the preparedness needs of emergency responders at all
levels.
I appeal to the chairman and I appeal to the ranking member, the
preparedness needs of emergency responders, from the State emergency
managers down to the rank-and-file first responders, the amendment
would add much needed funding for the Emergency Management Performance
Grant program, the EMPG, by $40 million, and the SAFECOM program office
by $10.3 million.
Mr. Chairman, the Emergency Management Performance Grant program is
the only source of funding to assist State and local governments with
planning and preparedness readiness activities associated with natural
disasters.
Mr. Chairman, I will also include into the Record letters of support
from the major organizations, the National Emergency Management
Association and the International Association of Emergency Managers.
The latter deals with local and county emergency boards.
The EMPG program is the primary source of Federal funding to these
State and local governments for planning, training, exercising, hiring
personnel. This program is used to support emergency management
personnel, natural disaster planning, training and drills, mass
evacuation planning, population sheltering and emergency operations. It
is critical for State and local governments, emergency management,
capacity building.
I know that the floor manager knows about this, since the
organization is in Lexington, Kentucky, his home area.
With hurricane season a week away, it is clear we need to be
strengthening our Nation's emergency preparedness capabilities. In
fact, a 2004 National Emergency Management Association study found
there is approximately $264 million shortfall in the EMPG for all 50
States. This is prior to the enormous emergency brought about through
Katrina and Rita.
Mr. Chairman, funds could be cut from the office of the DHS chief
information officer who received a plus-up of $41 million in funding he
didn't even request. The Department never requested this money. I am
appealing to the ranking member and to the chairman to take the money
that was not requested and put it into an area which affects all of us
in every one of the 50 States.
The 9/11 Commission report made it clear, Federal funding for
interoperable communication should be given the highest priority, and
this is what the SAFECOM office is all about. Yet, Project SAFECOM has
only five full-time employees.
We are talking out of both sides of our mouth here. We need to
address this at every level. How can we take seriously their claim that
the Department is doing all it can to be prepared for the next
emergency when it has not properly staffed Project SAFECOM.

[[Page H3302]]

____________________