[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22392-22400]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2360, 
        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 474

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is the standard rule for the 
consideration of a conference report. It waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration and 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation. This rule, brought to the floor today by the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, funds our most important Federal 
programs aimed at securing this Nation against terrorist attacks.

[[Page 22393]]

  It provides $30.8 billion for the operations and activities of the 
Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2006, an increase of 
$1.4 billion above fiscal year 2005 and $1.3 billion above the 
President's request. The conference report agreement reflects the DHS 
organizational structure recommended by the Secretary on July 13, 2005, 
and does not create any new aviation security fees.
  This legislation secures our homeland first and foremost by 
protecting our borders and revitalizing immigration enforcement. It 
provides nearly two-thirds of the overall budget for the Department, 
$19.1 billion for border protection, immigration enforcement and 
related activities.

                              {time}  1745

  This represents an increase of $1.2 billion over funding in 2005 and 
$490 million over the President's request. These funds are used to 
support cutting-edge technologies for high-risk cargo screening, to 
expand cargo inspection at foreign ports, and to support a robust 
revitalization of immigration enforcement along our borders and around 
our Nation.
  Among other security enhancing measures, this funding includes $1.8 
billion for border security and control, funding an additional 1,000 
Border Patrol agents. When combined with this year's supplemental 
appropriations, 1,500 new agents will be hired in 2006. It provides for 
$3.4 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, funding an 
additional 250 criminal investigators and 100 Immigration Enforcement 
agents. When combined with this year's supplemental, 568 new ICE agents 
and officers will be hired for year 2006.
  It provides $41 million for border security technology, including 
surveillance and unmanned aerial vehicles; $562 million for Air and 
Marine Operations to maintain the integrity of our borders and 
aerospace security, as well as drug interdiction; $94 million for the 
Institutional Removal Program, including an additional 100 agents; $40 
million for implementation of the READ ID Act; $5 million to train 
State and local officials and officers to enforce immigration laws; $1 
billion for immigration detention custody operations; and $135 million 
for transportation and removal of illegal immigrants.
  This conference report also recognizes the active role that the 
Department of Homeland Security must play in disaster mitigation and 
relief efforts. It prioritizes spending on Federal response capacities 
as well as increased planning and coordination with the States.
  To accomplish this, it includes $1.77 billion for the Disaster Relief 
Fund; $20 million for Urban Search and Rescue Teams; $20 million for 
FEMA catastrophic planning; $22 million for the National Incident 
Management System; $200 million for the Flood Map Modernization 
Program; a requirement that DHS develop guidelines for mass evacuation 
plans; and a requirement that DHS reports on the status of catastrophic 
planning in each of our 50 States.
  This conference report also provides $3.3 billion for first 
responders, in the form of performance grants to high-threat areas, 
firefighters and emergency management. Since September 11, 2001, $32.1 
billion has been provided to first responders, including funds for 
terrorism prevention and preparedness, general law enforcement, 
firefighter assistance, airport security, seaport security and public 
health preparation.
  This conference report includes funding of over $1 billion for high-
density urban areas, including $765 million for urban area grants, $150 
million for rail security, $175 million for port security and $65 
million for other infrastructure protection, $655 million for 
firefighter grants, $400 million for State and local enforcement 
terrorism prevention grants and $185 million for Emergency Management 
Performance Grants.
  Finally, this conference report provides $1.5 billion for the 
research and development of leading-edge technologies and $625 million 
to protect our critical infrastructure and key assets. These funds will 
be used to test and transition these technologies for use by Federal, 
State and local officials. It will also support ongoing efforts to 
develop secure communication systems with Federal, State and local 
entities and continue efforts with the private sector to implement 
protective measures around this important infrastructure.
  To accomplish this, the bill includes $538 million to develop 
radiological, nuclear, chemical, biological and high explosives 
countermeasures; $110 million for the research and development and 
testing of antimissile devices for commercial aircraft; $318 million to 
start up the new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to help coordinate 
global nuclear detection and tracking; $14 million to identify and 
characterize potential biological terrorist attacks; and $93.3 million 
for cyber-security technology.
  Mr. Speaker, I could spend a lot of time listing the many strengths 
of this bill and the thoughtful and threat-based way that it funds the 
programs that keep American families safe. Instead, I want to take time 
to strongly support this legislation with an open rule.
  I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations for their 
hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this Homeland Security conference report will be the 
third and one of the most important appropriations conference reports 
considered by Congress this session. In the wake of a wholly inadequate 
Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, it is this Congress's 
responsibility to provide the Department of Homeland Security with 
appropriate funding and resources. That funding must also come with 
proper direction and full oversight.
  Unfortunately, this conference report falls far short of that 
standard. Hurricane Katrina revealed several institutional problems 
with the Department of Homeland Security, in particular with the 
structure of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Over the past 
decade, FEMA has been stripped of its duties; folded into a 
disorganized department; and, most disturbingly, staffed by 
inexperienced people.
  With this bill, Congress had a golden opportunity to address the 
institutional disarray that has tarnished FEMA. Instead of doing the 
right thing, this conference report provides absolutely no guidance on 
how to spend billions of taxpayer dollars or how to properly 
restructure the agency. Furthermore, Secretary Chertoff has insisted on 
restructuring the Department again, for the sixth time, without any 
congressional oversight and hearings. He has proposed to place FEMA in 
the Preparedness Directorate, further splintering the agency's ability 
to respond quickly to disasters.
  Disaster preparedness and response are intrinsically linked. FEMA 
must be responsible for both. Separating these duties will only hinder 
the Federal Government's responsiveness potential. This systematic 
dismantling of FEMA's authority was the primary cause of the botched 
Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
  Secretary Chertoff's proposal to restructure FEMA will not solve the 
institutional deficiencies of the agency. While FEMA was not perfect 
before it merged into the Department of Homeland Security, at least 
there existed a level of expertise and skill and FEMA's director had 
immediate and direct access to the President of the United States.
  Experience and professionalism have been missing from FEMA under the 
Bush administration. Michael Brown, a product of political cronyism, is 
the perfect example of what happens to government without thorough 
oversight. Instead of having somebody with disaster experience, 
President Bush ended up with an Arabian horse specialist.
  A year ago, when the State of Florida was ravaged by multiple 
hurricanes, State and Federal officials complained

[[Page 22394]]

about the lack of preparedness and inadequate response from FEMA. 
Counties that were hit the hardest were overlooked while other counties 
that storms avoided received millions of dollars in funding. Florida 
lawmakers this past March urged two House committees with FEMA 
jurisdiction to hold hearings on what went wrong.
  Even after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit 6 months later, the 
Republican leadership has continued to block the Florida delegation's 
oversight request. And now we are all paying the price for neglecting 
oversight of FEMA, most notably the thousands who paid with their lives 
and their livelihoods.
  The House Republican leadership has consistently ignored proper 
oversight of this administration. It is clear that they do not want to 
ask tough questions or demand straight answers. This Congress has 
become a rubber stamp, and the results have been disastrous.
  Mr. Speaker, Brownie did not do a ``heckuva'' job and neither has 
this Congress. Unfortunately, when given the opportunity to do the 
right thing, the Republican leadership has once again acted against the 
best interests of the American people. Their response to these 
disasters and to these deficiencies at FEMA is to install a partisan 
committee that will simply gloss over the most important issues 
surrounding the failures of FEMA. Mr. Speaker, that is not oversight. 
That is a whitewash.
  A more effective FEMA can only be created when independent, 
experienced disaster specialists analyze the problems that Katrina 
exposed and then identify solutions. Restructuring FEMA without 
independent input and oversight is premature and will further plague 
its prevention and response capabilities.
  And not only is the oversight missing, Mr. Speaker, but so is the 
money. While my Republican friends will highlight the $1.3 billion 
increase over fiscal year 2005, let us be clear that this increase is 
only barely above the current rate of inflation. In reality, there are 
several funding cuts in this conference report that significantly and 
adversely affect the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA programs.
  This conference report cuts State and local preparedness funding by 
$585 million, a 19 percent cut from last year. Fire grants are funded 
at $60 million below the fiscal year 2005 level. Disaster relief 
funding is cut by $370 million, and pre-disaster mitigation funding is 
cut in half. Let me repeat that: Cut in half.
  How can we justify cutting disaster relief and mitigation funding by 
$420 million? Did Katrina not demonstrate how severely unprepared and 
ill-equipped FEMA really is? What kind of rationale is this?
  Thankfully, there are some programs in this conference report where 
funding levels are justifiable. For instance, the Coast Guard's 
``Deepwater'' program is fully funded at $933 million, due mostly in 
part to the Guard's extraordinary rescue efforts after Katrina.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the majority is thinking. Every 
single disaster, pre-disaster, preparedness and response program should 
be fully funded. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita should have taught us 
that. And along with full funding, there needs to be proper oversight. 
Neither the two enacted relief packages totaling over $60 billion nor 
this conference report provide any meaningful oversight. None. No check 
on the flow of the money. No way to ensure the proper awarding of 
contracts through competitive bidding. No accountability.
  Thankfully, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations, offered an amendment in conference 
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to provide detailed 
information on how Katrina disaster relief funding is being spent. The 
specific requirements laid out in this provision force the Department 
of Homeland Security to send Congress weekly reports that detail any 
and every kind of disaster relief spending, and I applaud the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering this important amendment. It is 
an important step in the right direction, a step toward accountability.
  I am also grateful to the efforts of the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of 
the Committee on Appropriations, who fought hard last week to instruct 
the conferees not to accept Secretary Chertoff's reorganization 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this conference report will pass by a 
comfortable margin, but it will not have my vote. We can do so much 
better than this. We need to do so much better than this, and I hope in 
the coming weeks and months, both the majority and the Democratic side 
will work together to achieve a product that we all can be proud of and 
that will truly ensure the homeland security of the people of our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts was very kind to enunciate and talk 
about the contributions that have been made on both sides of the aisle, 
Republicans and Democrats working together in an effort to make sure 
that Katrina is taken care of. I also take him at face value that he 
will not vote for this because there is not enough spending in the 
bill. There is not enough money that is being spent, and he outlined 
that money that he wants to spend.
  The majority party does need to make sure that the bill that comes 
forth is balanced and one that maintains the priorities of this 
country. So we on this side are standing up in strong support of this 
not only well-balanced bill but really will allow equal distribution as 
we see the needs of this country and the spending and to control that 
which we do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I 
appreciate his hard work on this and his very strong commitment to our 
Nation's homeland security. In the last Congress he served very ably as 
a member of the authorizing committee on homeland security.
  I also want to join in expressing my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who worked very hard on this, and for the 
bipartisan spirit of consideration of this measure. As the gentleman 
from Massachusetts correctly said, this is going to enjoy strong 
bipartisan support.
  Why? Because we all know that there must be a focus on our Nation's 
homeland security. It is part of our national security; and, frankly, 
Mr. Speaker, a very important part of our national security happens to 
be border security. One of the things included in this measure, of 
which I am particularly proud, is a measure that in the last Congress, 
I worked with our former colleague, Mr. Ose of Sacramento on, and my 
colleagues from California, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Cunningham and others have 
spent a great deal of time working on this, that is, we provide $35 
million for completion of the 3\1/2\-mile gap in the border fence.
  Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to be right on the border 
near that gap. It is an area known as Smugglers' Gulch. It is an area 
where people have illegally entered this country, and they have 
pummeled the environment. The notion of completing that 3\1/2\-mile gap 
is going to go a long way towards dealing with our border security 
concern, number one, and, number two, our environmental concerns in the 
area.
  I also have to say, having spent a great deal of time with our border 
patrol agents on the border just a few days ago, I am particularly 
proud of the hard work they put in their job. They want to have the 
ability to do their job. Right now they spend most of their time and 
energy coming to this country simply seeking an opportunity to feed 
their families. We need to ensure that they have the ability to focus 
on criminals and potential terrorists. That is exactly what we want to 
do.
  That is one of the other reasons that we, in this bill, have 
increased by 1,000,

[[Page 22395]]

adding to the 500 already provided in the earlier supplemental 
appropriations bill, 1,000 additional border patrol agents. I hope that 
will help us turn the corner. I am convinced that it will.
  The overall commitment to homeland security is one which has, I 
believe, been very adequately addressed in this important measure. I 
urge my colleagues to provide strong bipartisan support for this 
effort.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from 
Texas. One of my problems is the fact that this bill cuts some very 
important programs that I think do not deserve to be cut. It cuts first 
responder grants, which I think is a mistake. It underfunds 
communications equipment for first responders.
  Just like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina highlighted 
the problem of first responders having incompatible communications 
equipment. When Hurricane Katrina hit, emergency personnel were on at 
least five different channels and were hampered in communicating with 
one another. Yet this conference report continues to underfund 
interoperable communications systems. It cuts the disaster relief 
account. It cuts predisaster mitigation. It underfunds port security. 
It underfunds rail and transit security. It fails to include dedicated 
funding for chemical plant security. I could go on and on and on.
  Homeland security is not for free. If we are not funding these 
agencies, and we are not funding the necessary personnel to be able to 
protect our country, then we are not doing a very good job at homeland 
security. One other thing I will say to the gentleman from Texas. I 
believe that we have an obligation when we spend the taxpayers' money 
that there is thoughtful and effective oversight. We have allocated 
billions and billions of dollars already in response to this hurricane 
with no oversight. I do not want taxpayers' money wasted, and I am 
uncomfortable with the fact the bill provides no oversight. The 
gentleman may not be, but I am.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson), ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, later today the House will 
consider a measure that provides $30.8 billion in funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security. It also makes significant structural 
and policy changes to the Department. I am pleased that the conferees 
adopted many of the policy changes for which the Democrats on the 
Homeland Security Committee advocated during the Department's 
authorization process.
  For example, I am pleased that the Department is directed to 
undertake a quadrennial review, examine and justify multiyear 
procurement projects and develop a long-term strategy to ensure optimal 
development of explosive detection systems. I have to say, it is a sad 
state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, when Congress has to tell the Department 
to do planning.
  In the short history of the Department, it has earned a reputation 
for lacking focus and being crisis-driven. It took the London bombing 
to remind the Department that it is the lead Federal agency for 
protecting rail and transit. It took Hurricane Katrina to remind the 
Department that it is the lead Federal agency for all disasters, not 
just terrorism. We do not have the luxury of time to wait until the 
Department gets another wake-up call. In July, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security proposed a number of structural changes. Since that 
time, Katrina revealed dysfunction at the highest levels of the 
Department.
  I cannot understand why the conference report adopts many of the 
Secretary's proposed changes wholesale as if Katrina never happened. 
The establishment of a preparedness directorate would not make us any 
more prepared if FEMA is not fixed. The Department's changes are 
outdated. If we grant them to Mr. Chertoff, we will find ourselves 
revisiting this issue again after the next catastrophe. We need to fix 
the Department properly, not with duct tape and wires, what this 
conference report does by giving Secretary Chertoff carte blanche on 
the agency's structure.
  In response to this error, 13 members of the Homeland Security 
Committee have introduced the Department of Homeland Security Reform 
Act of 2005. This bill recognizes Katrina happened, and among other 
things, creates a statutory requirement that the head of FEMA have 
disaster and emergency preparedness experience. Current law requires 
the head of the National Park Service to have substantial experience in 
land management. The least we can do is require the director of FEMA to 
have prior experience in disasters. We do not need any more Brownies.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the homeland 
security appropriations bill. This legislation improves our homeland 
security in three key ways.
  First, it helps us crack down on illegal immigration and protects our 
borders by providing funding to hire 1,000 additional border patrol 
agents.
  Second, the bill provides $3.3 billion for first responders, 
including grants that go directly to high-risk urban areas and 
firefighters. Significantly, for the first time, the majority of the 
funding for first responders is appropriately allocated based on the 
actual risk of terrorism to these areas.
  Third, this legislation provides key funding for critical explosive 
detection devices, which are used to screen high-risk cargo coming into 
the United States through our seaports and airports.
  I am proud that one of the top manufacturers in the world of these 
explosive detection devices is CyTerra, a company headquartered in my 
district of Orlando, Florida. On August 15 of this year, Senator Mel 
Martinez and I toured CyTerra's facilities and met with their 
employees. These hard-working folks are proud of their role in making 
our country safer, and they should be. Their bomb detection devices 
have already saved many lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the 
underlying homeland security appropriations bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a leader on a number of homeland 
security issues.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the current system for 
distributing grants is fundamentally broken. I applaud the fact that 
this bipartisan conference report gives the Secretary of Homeland 
Security the flexibility to distribute more money based on risk rather 
than population.
  While I would like to see a much greater percentage of funds allotted 
exclusively on risk, at least this conference report finally addresses 
an issue on which many of us have spent years on both sides of the 
aisle working to remedy. I find it inexplicable that just as we improve 
the methods of monetary distribution, just as we improve the way first 
responders can get what they need, we limit the availability, the pool 
of needed resources. In fact, if it were not for both folks on each 
side of the aisle, we would have accepted the administration's plan, 
which would have been 4 percent less than what we have and no increase 
whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I think you should know today that the New York subway 
system is under high alert. We need to understand what the 
ramifications of that are. The FBI is working in concert with the New 
York City Police. This is the first time they have had very specific 
place, very specific time ramifications. Yet the coordinated and timed 
bombings in London and Madrid, the latest example of the fact between 
1998 and 2003, there were approximately 181 terrorist attacks on rail 
and transit targets.
  Since 9/11, despite the fact that passenger rail systems in the 
United States carry five times as many passengers each day as do the 
airlines, only $250 million of the estimated $6 billion needed has been 
invested in improving rail and transit security.
  Congress continues to provide woefully inadequate appropriations. 
Only

[[Page 22396]]

$150 million was appropriated for rail and transit authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should all be aware of this. It took a 
bipartisan effort to get us this far. We need to understand what is 
going on in New York City today, and I know this is not going to change 
the dollar figure, the dollar amount of this legislation.
  I would simply ask my brothers and sisters on both sides of the aisle 
to take note that this is serious business. We need to continue this 
hard work. The FIRE Act, for instance, was cut $60 million, which has 
been extremely, extremely crucial to the 32,000 fire departments 
throughout the United States of America. We cannot do everything. We 
realize that, Mr. Speaker, but there are things that we can do and we 
should do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, serving as a member of the conference, 
when you go and you look at an appropriations and tear apart where all 
the money goes and what the priorities are and what the needs are and 
work with the Senate, one of the most important attributes of getting a 
good bill is listening to both sides, Republicans and Democrats, and to 
understand those priorities as they relate not only to, in this case, 
homeland security, but really the needs of the entire country.
  The next gentleman, who is a leader in this Congress, did exactly 
that. He took time with Hal Rogers and John Carter to understand the 
needs as expressed by this administration, as expressed by the Senate, 
and by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
outstanding work and the work of the Rules Committee in bringing this 
rule to the floor. I rise in support of the rule and the conference 
report. We worked for months across the aisle to come to this point.
  I want to reemphasize, though, how much this rule does strengthen our 
work at the borders. One of the best employees I have ever had, Trish 
Mullins, the best caseworker, probably, in any congressional office in 
Tennessee, her son Scott Mullins is a border patrol agent on the 
Mexican border. We hear weekly of the trials and tribulations they 
face. They need the cavalry. With these 1,000 new border patrol agents, 
it brings the total in this fiscal year to 1,500, and hundreds of new 
investigators, criminal investigators through Immigrations and Customs 
Enforcement. This really does strengthen our borders. We have got to 
continue to take further steps.
  I also want to say that one of the things that Chairman Rogers and I 
have worked on for months now is to try to get the science and tech 
directorate to invest in new technologies. This bill creates the 
domestic nuclear detection office, which will really leverage all the 
laboratories and all the scientific assets in the country for better 
protection detection and get the equipment out there so that we 
continue to further protect our country.
  I also want to slow down and thank the staff, the professional staff, 
22 agencies, nearly 200,000 employees. This has been very complicated 
for 2\1/2\ years: Michelle Mrdeza, our staff director; Stephanie Gupta; 
Jeff Ashford; Tad Gallion; Tom McLemore; Ben Nicholson; Kelly Wade on 
the majority side; Beverly Pheto and the entire minority staff. They 
have worked countless hours to bring us to this point. They are 
excellent and professional.
  I believe we will meet not only to do what is right and pass this 
bill, but I think we are going to meet to actually continue this 
homeland security challenge that we face. There is a lot of money in 
the pipeline. I want to say to any of our people who have raised 
concerns about the firefighter and first responder grants, there is a 
lot of money in the pipeline.
  We had a hearing earlier in the day about how much money is yet to be 
allocated that is in the system. This Congress has funded these needs. 
This is the bread and butter. This is not the response to Katrina. This 
was under way prior to Katrina. The select committee, the supplementals 
will address Katrina. We are doing that daily. Clearly, we have got to 
do better.
  We will meet to make sure the Federal Government's response continues 
to improve. I encourage adoption of the rule and support for this most 
important homeland security conference report.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, how quickly we forget. We are essentially flying blind 
with this bill. We were supposed to have a comprehensive report from 
the Department of Homeland Security which was long overdue, and then, 
when finally produced, which was supposed to be comprehensive on all 
the transportation sectors, was a regurgitation of open-source material 
and news articles. They had an early, more specific version, but it was 
pulled by the administration because it was measurable. It had goals, 
objectives and technology. It would have shown how short the funding is 
in this bill and how little progress we have made: $150 million for all 
of the ports in the United States of America over the next year. Whew.
  Mr. Speaker, we could be buying radiation detection equipment for 
those ports, but that money is not available. It is not in the budget.
  Aviation security, arbitrary cap on screeners. Okay, you can cut back 
on labor if you give them adequate technology. But guess what? There is 
not enough money in this bill to buy the new technology, the new 
explosives detection equipment that should be at every passenger 
checkpoint, that should be under every airport, that should be used for 
cargo security, but they do not want to put up measurable goals, 
because they are not getting there, and the American people would be 
pretty darn mad about it if they knew.
  Then, first responder money, come on. Interoperable communications. 
First lesson: 9/11. We could not communicate with the fire and police 
and other first responders in the buildings, and many of them died, 
because they were out of touch as the buildings were collapsing, and 
they had no notice.
  Katrina, first lesson: no interoperable communications. Well, the 
President provided for zero dollars, and this is up to $76 million 
nationwide. Wow, that is enough to do three counties in my State out of 
36, and that is the money for the entire Nation of the United States of 
America for interoperable communications, the most basic tool that our 
first responders need to protect American lives and to rescue people 
and to better and more effectively deal with emergencies, whether they 
are terrorist-generated or natural disaster-generated, and we can come 
up with $76 million nationwide, not even a real tax break for some of 
the rich people around here.
  So to say somehow that this is adequate is absurd. If you set goals 
and the goals are, every first responder in America has interoperable 
communications, we are falling way short. If you say we are going to 
begin to protect ourselves against radiological attack, against bombs 
coming in in shipping containers, we are doing virtually nothing. If 
you are going to improve aviation security, nothing.
  Then, finally, they want to push us back to the good old days of 
private aviation security, but it is not happening, because people know 
what we have now is better. But in order to facilitate that push, they 
cap the liability of the private companies who are so good and, now, 
they have to extend complete liability exemption to the airports to try 
and induce them to bring in private security, because everybody knows 
it failed us on 9/11, and it will fail us again, but it will make money 
for a few special interests.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Carter), who is a speaker who also had an opportunity to 
serve on this appropriations conference in a detailed fashion and made 
sure that he looked at those priorities which were necessary for 
spending for this very important bill.

[[Page 22397]]


  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the State of Texas has demonstrated to the world that 
they opened their arms to the evacuees of the 2 hurricanes that struck 
our Nation and brought disaster to a great area of the Gulf Coast. 
Texas has always opened their arms to their neighbors and said, come to 
Texas, you are welcome.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem on the Texas border. I was down 
in Laredo, Mexico, and Del Rio, Texas, recently where 42 American 
citizens have been kidnapped. I have a photograph of a woman who was 
burned alive, an American citizen, by these criminals who cross freely 
across our borders of Texas. We say, welcome, in Texas, but when you 
come here, do not break the law to get here. It is time for border 
security in this bill.
  I rise in support of this rule and this homeland security 
appropriation bill because we start down the road to providing safe 
borders for the entire southern border and northern border of the 
United States. We add 1,000 Border Patrol men, which will be of great 
assistance in shutting down this criminal activity and all of this 
illegal behavior of people coming illegally into our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, 68,000 OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, have crossed within 
the last 8 months. That is a crisis. We have to do something about the 
borders, and this bill does that.
  We have new agents for the Border Patrol. We have new criminal 
investigators, we have new investigators for immigration and for ICE. 
We have provided a great start on a secure border. We will continue to 
work hard to secure the borders of this country so that this illegal 
behavior will be caught and punished and these people will be turned 
back, because, Mr. Speaker, our Nation's security depends upon it.
  So I am very supportive of this bill, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on 
the rule and a ``yes'' vote on this bill, because it is a vote for a 
secure border for America.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2360 which will equip 
our Nation to better prepare and respond to future natural disasters 
and terrorist attacks. This bill includes needed funding for priorities 
such as 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, port and transit 
security improvements, the Coast Guard's Deepwater program and a pilot 
program to improve air cargo screening.
  However, H.R. 2360 is not perfect. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned 
that this legislation implements structural changes proposed by 
Secretary Chertoff's second-stage review without full congressional 
scrutiny. While some changes may be warranted, today we will be voting 
to shift the TSA, eliminate the Under Secretary for Border and 
Transportation Security and weaken FEMA at a time when we need the 
agency to be strengthened, all without the benefit of significant 
oversight.
  That is why several members of the Committee on Homeland Security, 
myself included, have introduced the DHS Reform Act, which would 
improve the proposed reorganization plan by strengthening FEMA, 
detailing duties of the new chief intelligence officer and chief 
medical officer and establishing assistant secretaries for physical 
infrastructure security and for cyber security and telecommunications.
  Finally, it would require a quadrennial Homeland Security review, 
unlike H.R. 2360, which simply encourages such a review.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we will have an opportunity to consider the DHS 
Reform Act before it is too late to alter some of the significant 
changes proposed by the second-stage review and included in this 
appropriations bill. Nonetheless, while the conference report is not 
perfect, it is indeed an important and significant step towards 
strengthening our Nation's preparedness, and I will support H.R. 2360.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) who, once again, is a gentleman who served on the 
conference report, who is a person, who is a veteran of the Committee 
on Appropriations, a person who sits directly on the border of the 
United States and Mexico; he is a person who has been involved for many 
years in making sure that tough questions were asked and that we made 
sure that a balance for delivery of money was given to agencies with an 
expectation of perfor-
mance.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and 
for yielding me this time, and I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the underlying conference report on H.R. 
2360, the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee 
on Appropriations, I am especially pleased that this bill provides the 
resources needed to help secure our border. There are a lot of 
proposals in Congress that deal with the problem of illegal 
immigration, and they vary tremendously, but they all have one common 
theme to them, one common thread, and that is, they all recognize the 
need to secure our border, and this bill helps to provide the resources 
that are necessary to accomplish that goal.
  The bill ensures that Customs and Border Patrol will have ample funds 
to protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. We have to 
secure the border, and this appropriation bill provides the Department 
of Homeland Security with the resources it needs to get the job done.
  From additional agents, detention space, airplanes, helicopters, 
unmanned aerial vehicles, to better technology for securing and 
facilitating travel into the United States by land, air and sea, this 
bill has nearly everything that is needed to protect our homeland.
  The district I represent includes a large portion of the Border 
Patrol's Tucson sector, through which almost half, that is right, half 
of all of the Nation's illegal immigrants enter into this country. The 
negative impact that this has on communities in my area is staggering. 
The impact of environmental degradation, the cost to hospitals, police 
and sheriff's departments and other public agencies, not to mention the 
tragic loss of life in Arizona in the desert, as many people who seek 
to come to the United States for better opportunities perish in the 
heat of the summer.
  I am pleased that this conference report provides necessary resources 
to protect our border, not only an additional $56 million for the 
Tucson sector for expanding Border Patrol stations, fencing, vehicles, 
lighting, border roads and sensors, but across our entire border. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security 
Administration's Registered Traveler program.
  Like many of my colleagues, I was shocked to learn last month that 
the TSA has discontinued the Registered Traveler pilot program 
operating at five commercial airports. While TSA claims they need time 
to evaluate the pilot program before expanding, I contend they have 
been slow to act and, as a result, are depriving the traveling public, 
particularly frequent travelers, a more efficient, effective and safer 
manner of proceeding through airport security.
  TSA has been running the pilot programs since the summer of 2004. 
Each one was advertised to be 90 days in duration, at which point 
decisions about further deployment would be made. However, we find 
ourselves now over a year since these pilot programs began with TSA 
still saying they need additional time to evaluate it. I do not buy it.
  This is a classic example of the Federal Government being slow in 
making critical decisions about a program which we know to be a success 
and a

[[Page 22398]]

program that we know also makes us safer.
  Now, the TSA is continuing to operate a sixth pilot program at 
Orlando International Airport that they launched this past June. The 
Orlando pilot is different from the five pilots that have been shut 
down in that it is a public-private partnership that is run in 
conjunction with the airport, its vendor and TSA. I believe this 
public-private partnership is the way to go, as it will allow the 
private sector to add additional strengths to the programs, such as 
offering greater flexibility in meeting the needs and customer 
expectations, making rapid decisions on capital investment, and 
customizing programs based on intimate knowledge of the local market.
  The Registered Traveler program has promise, and I believe in it. 
However, due to the manner in which the pilot programs were structured 
and the lack of decision-making at TSA, this program is in jeopardy of 
not getting off the ground at the national level. First and foremost, 
there are too few measurable benefits at the security checkpoint for 
individuals enrolled in the Registered Traveler program. Why does TSA 
collect a list of personal data on an individual and then subject him 
or her to a security threat assessment and provide so few measurable 
benefits?
  I contend that if the Federal Government knows who you are by running 
your information against terrorist watch lists and other government 
databases, then they should provide more meaningful benefits at the 
security checkpoint such as not having you take off your shoes or not 
having you take off your coat or perhaps allowing nonticketed 
individuals back to the gates, as we did prior to 9/11, where they have 
our fingerprints and our eye retinas to make sure that we are safe 
going through. These are common sense benefits that can and should have 
been granted to individuals who sign up for this program. With not 
providing real benefits such as these, TSA is running the risk of 
killing this program before it is even started.

                              {time}  1830

  I am also extremely concerned with this language contained in the DHS 
conference report that provides a monopoly in my view to one 
organization to be the central collector and aggregator for biometric 
data necessary for the background vetting of the Registered Traveler 
program like other programs. This is not the approach we should be 
headed in in the United States Congress. We should be promoting 
competition, growth and an even playing field. And with a public-
private partnership like the public-private partnership taking place in 
Orlando, the American people will win, and the options and competitive 
environment will be what we need to make us safer.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York is exactly 
correct. We do need more competition engaged in not only homeland 
security but all across our government. The last session of Congress, I 
had an opportunity to serve on the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security and had an opportunity to work very closely with the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sweeney). As part of this appropriations conference, 
he very clearly and carefully brought forward thoughts and ideas, just 
exactly what our colleague from New York (Mr. Meeks) stated about the 
ability to create better competition but also to expect results. 
Several years ago the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) was the 
first Member of Congress to bring forward a threat-based funding 
analysis plan. That was that we would aim our funding at the most 
likely threats that our Nation would be facing. And it is this kind of 
leadership that has allowed us, and I know we all do not agree on this. 
I know that there are a lot of people that think you ought to divide up 
the pie and every State or every city get so much money and every first 
responder gets so much money. But that is not what this administration 
and not what this Congress believes is the right way to do that.
  I am pleased right now to have as our next speaker the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney) and I would yield him 3 minutes.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for the 
kind introduction and thank him for his great work at getting this rule 
out and onto the floor and for his friendship and his hard work on 
behalf of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been on this committee for a number of years 
since its inception. And every one of these bills comes to the floor, 
and we have common interests in the bill that we can agree on and 
common things that we can disagree on. But it is an accumulation of 
work representative of the process here, a bipartisan, bicameral bill 
that is not perfect by any means, but gets us significantly closer to 
the places we all want to be. And I think this is probably the one 
conference report that does that more than any other that I have been 
fortunate enough to work on, and it is because, as the gentleman from 
Texas pointed out, it does do something that is important and that has 
been voted on by this body a number of times, and that is to distribute 
first responder grants appropriately, threat-based, risk-based, first 
before we go to minimum standards.
  Now, we had negotiated, and we had a compromise with our friends in 
the other body who still have not gotten to the place where they 
understand that the most efficient way we are going to fund and protect 
this Nation is to make sure that the funds and the resources are 
directed to where threats most exist. And they insisted on still a 
minimum level of funding for every State in this Nation that I think 
exceeds common sense. But nevertheless, this is the first time we have 
been able to codify in legislation and will enact in legislation the 
idea that homeland security is going to be done threat-based, and that 
is critically important. And it is why this is an important bill. It is 
the most significant of the homeland security approps bills because it 
enacts into law what this body has said now for 2 straight years that 
we ought to be doing.
  It does a number of other really important things, too. And despite 
the critics, who we have heard from today, saying that it does not do 
enough, it does more to improve border security than any other single 
piece of legislation we have had before us since September the 11th. It 
does important things on restructuring our capabilities in science and 
technology, and every year, we have this debate that we are not 
spending enough money, whether it is for screening devices in airports 
or ports or other kinds of places or interoperability of 
communications. The fact of the matter is structurally this bill does 
more to get us to the place where we actually can have the technology 
put to use in the field that will ensure that we are able to provide 
that kind of support for our citizens and our first responders.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, after a very arduous 
negotiation, the Coast Guard Deepwater program, which is critically 
important to maintaining our security throughout, is really 
strengthened here in this bill. Now, we have got a lot of work left to 
do. There were billions, literally billions of dollars in the pipeline 
for first-responder grants. And the most important thing that we can do 
in this body, I think, is provide the proper oversight to make sure 
that those billions of dollars get to where they need to go and they 
are spent in a reasonable and responsible manner. This bill does that.
  I want to salute Chairman Rogers for taking the prudent steps that he 
has taken here and for really leading us. I support this bill and urge 
my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that is missing 
in this bill is the lack of oversight. That is why some of us have 
great concerns about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this bill fails us on chemical plant 
security. According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency, 
there are 23 States, including my home State of New Jersey, which has 
seven such plants where a worst-case release of

[[Page 22399]]

chemicals could threaten more than a million people per incident. And a 
part of my district, in northern New Jersey, is home to the area 
commonly referred to as the most dangerous 2 miles in America, an area 
between Newark Liberty Airport and Port Elizabeth that is home to a 
number of chemical plants.
  The New York Times recently reported that one plant in this area that 
possesses chlorine gas ``poses a potentially lethal threat to 12 
million people who live within a 14-mile radius.''
  Now, the attacks of September 11th made each of us realize that 
terrorism had entered a whole new realm, one in which our Nation's 
assets, infrastructure and people could be used against us. That is why 
the Menendez amendment to the House homeland security appropriations 
bill, which passed with the support of 224 of my colleagues, sought to 
improve the security of that area of chemical plants across the country 
by providing $50 million to State and local governments to enhance the 
security of those plants and the communities that surround them. This 
money could have been used to equip and train first responders, provide 
assistance and guidance to chemical plant officials to implement best 
management practices to improve security or to increase law enforcement 
presence and patrols around chemical plants.
  As a matter of fact, just this past week, there was a chlorine 
incident in a pool plant that strangulated traffic in the New York-New 
Jersey metro area. Unfortunately, the Republican controlled conference 
committee chose to delete the amendment from the entire conference 
report.
  Hurricane Katrina should have taught us the importance of addressing 
the problems we know we face before disaster strikes. The chemical 
plants that dot northern New Jersey are the Lake Ponchartrain of our 
region, and this Congress just decided to cut funding for the 
equivalent of levees that would protect our people.
  And not only did the conference committee on homeland security delete 
that amendment increasing funding for chemical security, it also cut 
State and local preparedness grants by $585 million, a full 19 percent 
lower than the level in the last fiscal year.
  This Congress had a chance to address a looming problem before it was 
too late. The decision to cut funding for chemical security is an 
astonishing abdication of Congress's responsibility to keep our 
families safe.
  And just while New York City at this very moment has heightened 
transit security because of a critical threat of bombing on the subway 
system, this bill woefully underfunds transit security.
  While my colleagues focus on undocumented immigration in this 
homeland security bill, they allow the Nation to be unprotected from 
attacks on our chemical plants, transit systems, ports and the ability 
of our first responders to respond. That is a Federal Government that 
is failing to secure its people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this bill finally 
fully funds the mitigation programs authorized last year by the Flood 
Insurance Reform Act, which I was pleased to coauthor with our former 
colleague, Doug Bereuter, which reauthorized and reformed the National 
Flood Insurance program assisting property owners who live in 
repetitively flooded areas. The programs in this bill are not funded by 
taxpayer dollars but by a transfer from the National Flood Insurance 
paid by premium dollars which authorized mitigation assistance to 
communities to elevate properties or move people out of harm's way.
  Hurricane Katrina highlighted the importance of preparing for and 
mitigating against these natural disasters. While I am pleased that we 
have partial funding, I am disappointed that the administration has not 
requested funding for these programs earlier, an approach that could 
have, if fully funded and aggressively implemented, saved lives and 
property.
  Unfortunately, the conference committee report cuts critical funding 
for other important mitigation programs. It provides only $50 million 
for pre-disaster mitigation, which is 67 percent below the House passed 
level and the President's request and 50 percent below the level for 
last year. This is what helps keep people out of harm's way.
  But my deepest concern in the report, I must say, is a local concern, 
dealing with what it does to Portland's airport screeners with a 
reduction of over 2,000 from last year and the President's request. 
These have led directly to cuts in screener levels at over 200 airports 
across the country.
  The airport that serves the Portland metropolitan area is hit the 
hardest in the country, losing over a third of our screeners despite an 
increase in our air traffic. These cuts will impact not just my 
community but those across the country and undermine our air 
transportation system.
  The cuts will lead to longer lines and lost luggage. These proposed 
cuts will leave Portland less protected than it was before 9/11. We 
have introduced a resolution of inquiry to find out why in the world 
TSA wants to do that.
  Unless we in Congress understand how TSA is doing the job of cutting 
funding for these screeners, they will come back to haunt our local 
communities and our already ailing airlines. I think our constituents 
deserve better.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, let me begin by saying something nice to the majority. 
I would like to point out for the record that this is the first 
conference report in this Congress that has lain over for 3 days as 
required under the rules of the House, so I want to thank the Speaker 
and the majority leader and the members of the Rules Committee for 
following the rules of the House for a change. I hope we can do this 
more often.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me address the substance of this conference 
report. This conference report cuts first-responder grants. We have 
heard that over and over and over again. And let me just say to my 
colleagues on the other side who say that somehow there is money in the 
pipeline, well, there shouldn't be any money in the pipeline. The need 
is that great.
  The first responders in this country, our fire fighters and our 
police officers, they do not want resolutions of support. They do not 
want your eloquent speeches. They do not want your meaningless 
proclamations. What they want, what they need are the resources to be 
able to do their job, to protect their communities.
  And yet, under this conference report, three of the four major grants 
programs for first responders in the Department of Homeland Security 
are cut below fiscal year 2005 levels. It underfunds communications 
equipment for first responders. We have been talking about that over 
and over throughout this debate.
  But what is particularly astonishing to me is that, despite what we 
saw in Katrina, where people could not communicate with each other, 
similar to what happened during 9/11, the conference report actually 
provides $15 million or 36 percent less than the amount the House 
provided for this equipment in the original bill back in May before 
Katrina ever struck.
  Now we have heard a lot on the other side about budget priorities and 
limited moneys and funding shortfalls. But we have to get this right. 
This is about protecting our homeland security. This is government's 
first responsibility, to protect the people of this country.
  You never talk about budget priorities. You never talk about money 
shortfalls when it comes to tax cuts that benefit mostly the richest 
people in this country. But yet when it comes to protecting people, 
providing the equipment that our first responders need, providing the 
equipment our communities need to protect themselves against a 
terrorist attack or a natural disaster, somehow we do not have the 
money.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 22400]]




                Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). The Chair will remind 
all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House 
and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or 
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased and proud today to have the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) to lead us today as we have an opportunity to debate, discuss, 
and vote on this important appropriations bill for homeland security.
  Mr. Speaker, I will admit to my colleagues we worked hard on this 
bill. It is a bipartisan effort. It was one that employed a lot of 
people with a lot of thoughts and ideas. We worked with the Senate, we 
worked with the administration, a lot of work, but what we have done is 
produce a package that is threat-based. It is based on those experts 
who see the threat that is aimed against the United States, and they 
are numerous. They are numerous. They are not in our largest cities, 
but along our border, but, Mr. Speaker, we have worked together to make 
sure that in a bipartisan fashion this was addressed, and I am pleased 
and proud today to say that this is a threat-based bill, based upon 
what the experts tell us is facing the United States today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight the retirement of a very 
important person in the administration. He is a former commissioner of 
U.S. Customs; and under Homeland Security, he has been commissioner of 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Judge Robert Bonner from Los 
Angeles, California, who has served this great Nation for a number of 
years as a Federal judge and once again in the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection. Judge Bonner will be leaving in just about a month from his 
service to the administration; and Judge Bonner has been a man of not 
only substance and vision but a person who has offered Members of 
Congress his best advice on how best to deal with the threats against 
this Nation.
  So I would like to highlight not only the service to this country 
that the Members of Congress have done in this appropriations bill but 
also working with the administration, with such fine people as Judge 
Bonner.
  Mr. Speaker, I will confess to my colleagues that this bill that we 
have here today is aimed at averting and stopping the next terrorist 
attack that comes aimed at this country. I hope that we have put the 
best minds to this and that we are prepared.
  I am prepared to tell my colleagues right now I support this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will ultimately support the 
underlying legislation under the Conference Report, but I recognize 
that it has many shortfalls that will affect this nation's ability to 
respond to a new and substantial set of circumstances--namely the 
aftermath of Katrina and Rita. I speak not only from the standpoint of 
a Representative of an area that experienced compound effects of both 
Katrina and Rita, but I speak as mother, wife, and a person who 
understands the pains of economic hardship.
  A restrictive rule in a situation such as this will only limit the 
effectiveness of this legislation. Hurricane Katrina has been a natural 
disaster of unprecedented proportions. The effects of Katrina, now 
compounded with the effects of hurricane Rita, have been difficult to 
predict and even more difficult to prevent. Thousands of people are 
displaced, hungry, and without hope. Authorities at every level of 
government are virtually writing the book on how to respond to a 
disaster of this proportion and scope. In my district alone, there are 
15,000 displaced children who need homes, schooling, food, jobs, and 
subsistence items. New information is coming in by the hour on damage 
that was done to our infrastructure, the numbers of displaced people, 
and the paltry resources available.
  I applaud the Conferees for giving agencies such as ICE an 
appropriation of $3.175 billion--which was a $216 million increase over 
the FY05 level of $2.95 billion. Furthermore, of the $4.6 billion 
allocated to TSA, $2.54 billion is allocated to cover passenger and 
baggage screener workforce. The number of TSA screeners is capped at 
45,000--which will constrain our efforts to compensate for the effects 
of the two hurricanes. Within this account, privatized screening 
operations are funded at $140 million. The conferees also extended 
liability protection to airports with private and TSA screeners for 
``any act of negligence, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing'' 
committed by a Federal or private screener--which will be a good 
element.
  Unfortunately, the underlying bill is not exactly on-point or up-to-
date vis-a-vis Hurricane Rita. Many of the problems that we face are 
new, late breaking, and developing in front of our eyes. We need as 
unrestrictive a rule as possible in order to best address the issues 
contained with this legislation. In fact we have still not given full 
attention to the value of growing and promoting citizen Corps--
established neighborhood groups that were established in the original 
homeland security legislation that would help train neighborhoods in 
securing their communities.
  This measure is of critical importance for the constituents of my 
district. We can do better.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________